I don't know. I last spoke to him 3 years before the crash. But he clearly knew what he was saying, as at the inquest he totally contradicted what he'd said in his initial MAR report, adopting the line Boscombe had been pressurised to take. It was the same issue that MoD and Ministers had lied about on Mull of Kintyre in the mid-90s - that of the definition of Safety Critical. He knew the problem rendered the aircraft functionally unsafe (as he'd clearly stated it in the MAR report), but never mentioned this to the court, saying it was not Safety Critical. MoD used this evidence to claim the aircraft were serviceable and fit for purpose, when they were clearly neither. Sorry, but if your primary sensors are designated "No Go" systems, but are unserviceable, then the aircraft is not fit for purpose (in this case, war fighting). Under extreme circumstances you may choose to take the risk and "Go", but to what end?