I'd forgotten that the HARP report came out before this accident.
The CAA have never made that report available online but there is an interesting article called '
The Price of Helicopter Safety' in the New Scientist of 27 Nov 1986 that suggests the research funding came after the Sumburgh disaster.
Geoffersincornwall said:
Seems to me that in the case of the 234 maybe some higher forces were at work. Could any of the 3 players (Shell, BA and Boeing) have applied pressure to the CAA?
You mean a bit like the forces that were put on the regulators when the S-92 MGB failed its oil system certification test on 24 August 2002, weeks before the FAA were due to certify it?
As mentioned above, Boeing appealed against the AIB report leading to an unprecedented independent legal review before the report was issued,
held in public:
1989 | 3841 | Flight Archive
AB should note that Boeing were trying, unsuccessfully, to put blame onto BIH...
Unlike the
Wells public inquiry in Newfoundland after the Cougar S-92 accident, the Chinook review was able to examine all aspects of the accident investigation and aircraft certification (Well's Terms of Reference gagged him form these aspects), and
confirmed the thoroughness of the AIB's work.
There was also a Fatal Accident Inquiry held in a court in Scotland too.