Possibly an engine runaway up took place at a critical moment. This would explain the apparent discrepancy of the yachtsman's evidence that the aircraft was flying slowly and the aircraft hitting the ground at high power shortly afterwards. He said he thought it was possibly involved in a SAR because of its low speed when he saw it.
(I too fly a FADEC equipped aircraft, of a more modern spec than this type of aircraft had. Quite often, if we get a FADEC malunction, shutting the aircraft down completely and turning off the battery power removes the fault indication, leaving no evidence).
It is also feasible that an optical illusion took place in the marginal weather conditions.
Perhaps a navigational error, caused by the the TANS, occurred(apparently had been previously reported by other crews as playing up, no fault found or corrected by maintenance).
Maybe some other failure took place, after all, the co-pilot's i/c box was found in the emergency position.
Accident likely to be a combination of more than one thing.
Possibly, feasibly, perhaps, maybe, likely.
But evidence of the actual cause? Insufficient to be determined.
Gross Negligence? Unlikely.
Unjust, spiteful overturning of correct BOI verdict? Definitely.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 28th Mar 2004 at 17:37.