I could not disagree with John Purdey more strongly. Leave matters as they stand? Rubbish!
Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook were not a pair of student private pilots on the loose from some low grade FTO: they were highly skilled and experienced special forces pilots and must have been among Britain's best. Thus, it is inconceivable that, specially when carrying such a precious load of pax, they would have breached VFR/IFR low flying rules other than in circumstances of extreme emergency.
The Chinook did not carry the kind of flight recorders and cockpit voice recorders that a civilian aircraft would carry and the two pilots, being killed in the crash, became unavailable to be interrogated on the circumstances of the crash. It is in the very nature of emergencies caused by software (if that is what happened) that they leave no evidence.
Thus, it is impossible to say what happened and therefore impossible to award blame to the pilots under the rules in force in the RAF at that time.
RAF regulations, in force at the time, apparently precluded any finding of fault against deceased pilots where the evidence against them was other than watertight. How therefore, could these regulations be openly flouted by a guilty finding without the resulting judgement being set aside in later procedings?
In my view, the Chinook Scandal (yes, scandal) is Britain's Dreyfus Scandal. (In 2000 I wrote to a selection of MPs saying as much).
In brief, Alfred Dreyfus was a captain in the French Army in the late 19th Century who was accused of spying on the basis of papers found in a waste paper basket that contained secret information to which he among others would have had access. He was sent to Devil's Island for 25 years. Very many years later he was pardoned and awarded the 'Legion d' Honour'. As recently as 1986 he was publicly declared innocent by a General of the French Army.
If you wish to look up the circumstances of the Alfred Deyfus affair, it is easily available on the Internet. May I recommend all readers of this thread, do please look it up if only for interest. You will find comparisons with the present case very striking.
In my opinion, what has happened here is that it has been found convenient for certain elements within the RAF high command and certain civilians responsible for the acquisition of the Mk2 Chinook (in its perhaps questionable state of development at that time), to allow these two pilots to 'carry the can' for something for which blame (if blame there should) must certainly rest elsewhere.
The questions about the handling of this case by the various authorities continue to mount. For example, when the matter finally ended up in the House of Lords, why was a whip imposed and at whose request?
Since 'Their Lordships' will almost all have been non aviators, how do they come to be ruling on such a complex technical matter without at least having technically qualified 'amicae curiae' or expert 'assessors' (recruited from some source other than the RAF) available to advise them?
In my opinion, the whole business stinks!