(a)  The solicitor for the Cook family submitted that I should find it reasonable for inquiry to be made into assessing whether it would be both cost-effective and viable to have a ground proximity warning radar system fitted in RAF Chinook helicopters. I can see that there could be advantages in such a system being fitted. But there was so little evidence upon this particular subject that I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment further upon the matter.

  (b)  Counsel for the Tapper family in his submissions drew attention to the fact (which was touched upon briefly during the procedural hearing on 18 December 1995) that two senior RAF officers had expressed the opinion in commenting upon the findings of the Board of Inquiry that there had been gross negligence on the part of both Flt Lt Tapper and Flt Lt Cook notwithstanding that that had not been the conclusion of the Board of Inquiry. He submitted that I should reject any suggestion that either Flt Lt Tapper or Flt Lt Cook had been negligent as being unsupported by the available evidence. The solicitor for the Cook family similarly invited me to find that Flt Lt Cook in particular had not contributed to the accident either by act or omission. In response to these submissions counsel for the Ministry of Defence argued, rightly in my opinion, that it was no part of this court's function under the Act to make findings of negligence or the absence of negligence. Furthermore, he made it clear that it was no part of his submission as to the cause of the accident to apportion responsibility among individual members of the crew and that, in referring to the crew, he did so without imputing personal responsibility to any one or more individuals. In the event it has not been established to my satisfaction that the cause of the accident was that found by the Board of Inquiry and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further upon what others may or may not have said on the matter.

  (c)  It may be of assistance if I were to say a word about the appointment of an assessor in a case of this kind. The assessor's function has been rightly stated in Carmichael: Sudden Deaths and Fatal Accident Inquiries (2nd Edn) at paragraph 3.45 as follows: "The assessor's role, therefore, will be to explain and interpret to the sheriff matters of technical difficulty and complexity in relation to, for example, any manufacturing or other industrial process; or the intricacies of medical, surgical, physiological, biochemical, pathological or other scientific matters of complexity which it is anticipated may arise in the course of an inquiry under the Act. He should not express opinions on the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect of which it is for the sheriff to make up his mind and eventually to issue a determination in terms of section 6(1) of the Act". Nor is it any part of the assessor's duty to give evidence to the sheriff in private about basic factual matters upon which the sheriff's determination is to be based and which ought to be brought out in evidence in open court. In the present case a motion was made at the procedural hearing for the appointment of an assessor by the solicitor for the Cook family supported by counsel for the Tapper family. The advocate depute indicated that the Crown's position was that it was not perceived that the material which would be placed before the court would be so incomprehensible that an assessor would be necessary. Since neither the solicitor for the Cook family nor counsel for the Tapper family were able to state at that stage that there was any particular area of evidence which it was thought would be so complicated that the appointment of an assessor would be necessary or that there were any particular areas of dispute on technical matters, I decided to refuse the motion for the appointment of an assessor.

  With the benefit of hindsight, and knowing what I do now about the design, construction and operation of Chinook helicopters, I am in no doubt that the appointment of an assessor was unnecessary in this case. But I have to say that my task in acquiring this knowledge was not made any easier by the manner in which the evidence was presented by the Crown to the inquiry. For example, it may be thought rather odd to have expected the court to understand two and half days of very detailed technical evidence from Mr Cable in examination in chief about his investigation of the wreckage of ZD576 before any evidence had been led to demonstrate clearly what a Chinook MkII helicopter was meant to look like, and how it was meant to work, when it was entire. Indeed, it was only just before lunch on the ninth day of the inquiry that questions were for the first time asked of Mr Cable in cross-examination about how it is that a Chinook MkII helicopter can actually be made to fly forwards, upwards, downwards and to the side through the air. Likewise, while there were among the productions for the Crown in excess of sixty photographs of the wreckage of ZD576, there were only six photographs of a complete Chinook MkII helicopter. Of these, two were of the exterior of the aircraft taken from about 30 yards diagonally from the front and rear, two were of the cabin looking fore and aft respectively, one showed a general view of the cockpit looking forward and taken from just in front of the jump seat and the sixth showed a section of the canted console between the two pilots' seats including the SuperTANS and ADF and IFF units. In the general photograph of the cockpit the cyclic sticks could be seen in broad outline and with a practised eye the top of the right hand collective lever could just be discerned. The AAIB Report contained a few diagrams, mainly of particular components, which were of very little assistance in understanding the basic design and construction of the aircraft (and this is not intended as a criticism of Mr Cable), but otherwise there were no diagrams at all to illustrate these matters notwithstanding that I later discovered during my inspection of a Chinook helicopter that the Aircrew Manual contained some easily understood diagrams of, for example, the aircraft's engine transmission and flight control systems. It is not to be expected that a sheriff coming to an inquiry such as this will have even a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics, control and operation of a helicopter in flight, and it certainly would have been helpful to me, and I dare say also to others present in court who knew as little as I did at the outset about Chinook helicopters, to have spent perhaps an hour or two, or even a morning, at an early stage in the inquiry hearing evidence, supplemented by suitable visual aids, about these matters. In this context I would heartily endorse the words of Mr Carmichael where he writes at paragraph 5.63 of his book: "The duty laid on the procurator fiscal of investigating the circumstances of sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths in general, as well as deaths coming under s.1(1)(a) or the 1976 Act, is one of great importance. On him lies also the duty of presenting the fruits of his investigations to the court in such a manner that their import is as plain and clear as possible. Anything less would be a denial of what is conceived to be the intention of impartial public inquiry. To that end, the procurator fiscal, and any other party leading evidence, should not scorn the use of visual aids. Models, if obtainable, can be most helpful. Diagrams, photographs, slides projected on a screen, and video recordings, can be used with good effect. In some cases an overhead projector with a supply of acetate sheets and the correct drawing equipment may help a witness to illustrate his oral evidence. The procurator fiscal is, by statute, the investigator and it is for him primarily to probe the facts and present them, in the public interest, to the court".

  (d)  I will not disguise the fact that I learnt a great deal of what I know now of Chinook helicopters during my inspection of one such helicopter which was brought through the good offices of the RAF to Glasgow Airport at the end of the third week of the inquiry. At the outset of the inquiry I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to inspect such a helicopter, let alone go for a flight in one. But it became increasingly apparent as time passed that I would have to do so if I was to gain the understanding that I thought necessary to a proper consideration of the issues in this case. I had hoped during the flight to fly around the scene of the crash, or at least over the sea and adjacent to high ground similar to that found at the Mull of Kintyre. In the event the weather prevented that and only a very short flight was possible in the immediate vicinity of Glasgow Airport. But the flight, and my inspection of the aircraft on the ground, were both very helpful and I should like to place on record my gratitude to the captain and crew who received me and answered all my questions with courtesy and patience.