kilo52
You really are twisting the very limited evidence available, in a way that has a very depressing familiarity about it!!!
You are obviously moderately familiar with the BOI investigation. Though perhaps not so familiar with the many subsequent inquiries that have found serious flaws in the original.
You state categorically that "no crew member had eaten a meal for at least 10 hours."
Interesting!
Ignoring the implication that hunger was a causal factor in the accident. The question remains, where is the evidence to support this claim??
Answer - It does not exist! (I have seen no evidence regarding their stomach contents - If this forms a crucial part of the investigation, perhaps it may still be recorded somewhere!!)
Perhaps you meant to say, no witnesses gave 'conclusive' evidence as to the crew's eating arrangements subsequent to breakfast!
But that doesn't fit your agenda does it!
As far as 'failing to complete the required outbrief with the DAO' is concerned, I can only assume that you (as well as I) know precisely why that was (why don't you remind our readers?)
I am sure you will also take the opportunity to clarify that this 'omission' was not the fault of the crew at all!
You may also care to explain that the reason the crew left a photocopy of "A" chart (Nobody has EVER suggested this was "THE" map they were using for navigation!) was a laudable attempt by them to provide the DAO with the best 'outbriefing' they could during his absence from post!!
This chart had indeed been prepared by Lt K. (RN). You know why, and you also know it is irrelevant, since nobody knows what maps (Yes, probably more than one!) were being used in the aircraft!
As far as booking accomodation, or seeking approval for nightstopping the aircraft out of theatre, or indeed extending crew duty time, was concerned, you are absolutely right.
"Nobody knows to this day what the intention of the crew was."
Either would have been legal, and perfectly understandable!
You will of course take the opportunity to confirm that at the time of the accident NO limits had been exceeded, nor would they have been by the time the crew arrived at their destination!!
Many of course did note the supposition by the BOI that the apparent high speed of the aircraft 'immediately' prior to impact was an attempt to reduce crew duty overrun to a minimum.
But since you told us -
"Nobody knows to this day what the intention of the crew was."
I guess it remains firmly in the realms of supposition, and I along with many others may 'suppose' something completely different!
So what FACTS were we able to glean from your posting, which was presented in a wrapper implying some form of 'indiscipline' in the crew concerned!!
The only thing I see is that:
No limits were exceeded.
The crew did everything they could to comply with outbriefing requirements in an 'operational' theatre.
Precious little evidence is available in many areas that would have given us a clearer picture of what exactly was happening in the cockpit of ZD576 as it approached the Mull of Kintyre at 1800 on 2nd June 1994!
We can agree can't we?
Incidentally, I note your assertion that the pilots were both assessed as 'average'.
I need to do a little research on that, since (with the greatest respect) I'm not sure I can take your claims at face value.
Almost a decade ago - How depressing.