JP
Can I ask you to open your mind for the couple of minutes it will take you to read and digest what I have to say?
I, like yourself, cannot find any other plausible explanation for this accident than that of controlled flight into terrain. The trouble is the reviewing officers came to a conclusion that required there “be no doubt what so ever”. This is where you and I begin to disagree!
If the Airships wanted to let this be seen as a tragic, but probably avoidable, accident they could have categorised it as ‘cause unknown’, a conclusion which would have left all airmen the choice of cause. When read in the cold light of day the ‘flimsy’ (ie
précis) of the BoI leaves no room for error; Controlled Flight into Terrain. Job done.
Now I need you to stay with me on this so please read on to the end without prejudice.
If a promotion board sits and has a candidate for promotion before them with a “special recommendation for promotion” they will exam the narrative of the report for reasons why this man and not another with the same recommendation should get the required score for that years promotion quota. Should the same board review an officer who is “highly recommended for promotion” they will invariably look for reasons to upgrade him in the narrative. I’m told this is human nature and have no reason to disagree with it. I’m sure some PPruner can recount an old sage who has reasoned this phenomenon through.
In coming out with both guns blazing Day and Wratton made an awful lot of airmen look beyond the bare bones of the crash and opened up a whole can of worms which they may or may not have been trying to bury. This has led to a great many people to look beyond the ‘flimsy’ and ask questions about how there can be “no doubt what so ever” as to the cause of the crash.
I do not doubt your reasoning about most of the available facts regarding this accident however what you and I require as evidence of an individuals failure is far less than that required by the finding of both Day and Wratton when they declared that Tapper and Cooke were “grossly negligent”.