Dear Mr. Purdey,
No, I confess I wasn't aware of the very interesting point you have made, nor do I feel qualified to comment on it as,
a) I am not a military pilot, I'm a civil pilot, (but one who cares about how our mil pilots are treated).
b) I am not a helicopter pilot, I'm a fixed wing pilot.
c) I don't know the terrain and can only imagine from descriptions what weather conditions were actually like on that day.
As such, I do not know enough about the following.
1. RAF Operational Procedures, especially as applied to security sensitive passenger flights.
2. Why a helicopter, of all things, was used for that particular trip anyway. (Was there a security reason)?
3. The Chinook's performance envelope and why it was flying so low along route. (Perhaps there was a good security reason).
4. The accuracy and reliability of navigational equipment carried by an RAF Chinook.
In addition, I don't think anyone yet knows the whole truth about that FADEC!
Thus, I am unable to assess the significance of the extremely interesting point you have made. But surely, this point should have been picked up and investigated by the AAIB: if not, why not? Have they ever been asked why they discounted the significance of this point?
My point, however, is a LEGAL one rather than one of airmanship. Here is a case of doubt. Two boards of enquiry found the evidence inconclusive. Under RAF regulations in force at the time, Flt Lts. Tapper and Cook, having died in the accident, were not available for questioning and therefore should automatically have been given the benefit of that doubt.
Two air marshalls chose to ignore the verdict of the second board of enquiry and declare the pilots negligent, seemingly without any evidence at their disposal additional to that considered by the second board and, I should have thought, in blatant breach of RAF Law.
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that if you are senior enough in the RAF, you can get away with anything with impunity.
Best wishes,
BroomstickPilot