I think its disgusting that these insinuations are made in court. Is it an MoD thing, or an RAF thing? Seems to me it happens at almost every RAF inquest and seldom at others. If it turns out the Board of Inquiry had already determined the pilot was not to blame, then whoever made these insinuations should be put in a hole.
If one takes your viewpoint to it's logical conclusion, then there is no need for an inquest, and the MoD/RAF BoI/SI is taken as the complete truth, including for liability purposes.
I would counter with:
- The Mull Chinook accident showed that MoD BoI/SI system is not necessarily the whole story
- An Aircraft Accident investigation is generally to learn from / prevent future occurrences, and not to allocate blame.
- I do not know exactly the (defined) purpose of an inquest, but I am pretty sure it is not as the item above.
It is stated the coroner has the MoD SI report in front of him, and that it will be released at the end of the month (?). I think we probably need to wait until the coroner has concluded, and the SI released.
Meanwhile, I think to those on the outside, we are just seeing a complex legal process occurring with conflicting information / apparent purpose confusing to the layman.
NoD