Sorry, been away for a few days, but delighted to see that the thread continues to draw interest.
I'll go through points raised since my last visit and give you my opinion on the comments since 29 November, so apologies if I rake over old posts.
Invertron - I think the point of how far out the cloud extended is a valid point. If it's orographic cloud then it's fair to offer that the coast could be established from the cockpit. If it wasn't and the cloud did, in fact, extend further out then you may have a point. Unfortunately, none of us know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots saw from the cockpit, and the only evidence we have is conflicting. The weather information, therefore, has to be treated with extreme caution when offering it as fact. If Jon and Rick did see the Mull, I have no idea why they flew into it.
Mr Purdey, we do know what the weather was like at sea-level because Mr Holbrook gave evidence as such. As none of us were stood with him I respectfully suggest none of us are qualified to challenge his statement with absolute surety.
Tuckunder, welcome to the thread. Kind words, and thank you for your support.
Tucumseh, your concerns and points raised are the very same raised by Air Commodore Blakeley.
Invertron, you make the point of the statement "had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?" I would suggest that as an isolated statement, it is, indeed, a factual statement. However, You are making the assumption that, with regards this subject, the pilots definately intended to overfly the Mull. We don't know that they intended to do so. Perhaps they intended to fly to the west of the landmass. Again we don't know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Speculation, assumption and even 'most probably' do not satisfy the burden of proof laws in place at the time.
I know that you have said that you are playing Devil's Advocate with your questions and I am also grateful that you have publically stated that you feel the negligence verdict should be removed from the pilots. May I ask what it is about the evidence (or lack of) that makes you feel the verdict to be unsafe? I assure you that this is not a trick question - just want to know what it is that you're not happy with.
rafloo, I would have turned back too. Wonder why they didn't?
Thud, Hope you are keeping well. Good point about the removal of Crown Immunity. Do you recall if there was anything in writing sent to Squadrons?
Invertron, (sorry, I'm not having a go. You've just been rather busy!). The use of the word 'Deliberately' by Mr Wratten indicates that he knows with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots were thinking, what they were saying, and what their control input(s) were. He doesn't. Therefore it's not of factual evidential value.
mikehegland, I think it (the campaign) will go away, once justice has seen to be done. We try to move it on in a dignified way because we are aware that what we are doing affects the families of 29 people. Direct action is not something we feel, at this time is appropriate for the campaign, although I'm not saying it has never been discussed!
To everyone, I'm sorry if I've backtracked a bit too far, but wished to comment on what I'd missed. I have to admit to wondering why we all seem to go over the same old issues, both entirely convinced on our own perspective and interpretation of the small amount of factual evidence.
Would it be fair to say that the only thing any of us who contribute here can say is that the pilots may well have been negligent, but then again they may not have been. We will never know what really did happen, to cause such a tragic accident, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook