Mr Purdey, the original verdict of the Board if Inquiry was:
In deciding which one of these three was the most probable cause, the Board could not avoid a degree of speculation. However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate ROC to safely overfly the Mull.
Whilst the Board's findings may, indeed, be accurate the fact that there is a degree of speculation, and this was one of three possible options considered, negates the absolutely no doubt whatsoever requirement.
Perhaps the crew were pressing on (your words) because there was a problem which required them to land immediately. As you are no doubt aware, helicopters require only their size in area to land, whereas a fixed wing aircraft needs a somewhat longer stretch of straight tarmac.
I know we've had many a discussion before, but I just feel that there are far too many unanswered questions and unknown variables for the verdict to be considered safe.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook