Leon and Short&Shapeless
There was indeed a radar plot presented to the GCM. The most accurate was the Allanshill radar information which pointed a little to the west of Ben Macdui and not directly at the crash site. A supernumerary member of the BOI had also drawn a line on the map which aligned with the crash site. It was only under questioning by Mike Jones QC that it was admitted that this was not radar derived information but had been drawn because the particular member considered that in, his considerable aircrew experience, it wasn't possible for the F15s to have manoeuvred from their last seen position on radar to the impact point. This was one of the points that the QC referred to as 'fudging' of evidence to fit the case.
Leon refers to a recalculation of the radar data. I see no mention of this in the body text of the BOI report; he must have inside information or it lies in the annexes which we still await and he has access to. Even if new data suggests that the track is now aligned directly with the crash site, it is not proof of how the aircraft crashed. Leon is correct in stating that there was no definitive time of crash; it has always surprised me that no aircrew watches were recovered, that the aircraft had no ADRs or timepieces and that we couldn't get seismology information. Any one of these might have given a vital clue.
Without that clue, we must consider the very convincing eyewitness statements and their positions relative to one another. Furthermore, from top of descent the aircraft never reported that they were IMC and their rate of descent was indicative of a VMC descent (conceded by the USAF witness at the CM). The forecast weather supported a VMC descent (also conceded). As they approached the 'advised' altitude of 4000ft they were still descending at a rate of 2000fpm or greater; yet a further clue that they were visual with the ground and pressing on in to low level. Incidentally, when the aircraft were in their initial descent towards the Leuchars overhead, they flew in trail. It was only when they got VMC beneath that they joined to 'close' formation. They remained in 'close' formation in the subsequent climb and descent; they were still in 'close' formation when seen by all the eyewitnesses and were still in that formation when they crashed. The BOI report makes no mention of the differing formations flown by the F15s (close) and the Tornados (loose trail); is this an oversight or something else hidden in the annexes? The difference in formations is crucial in understanding that the eyewitnesses didn't see Tornados.
I expect we will remain in our two camps of 'probable cause' but, without hard facts, I can't agree with the comments and conclusions of the air ranking officers who have shifted the emphasis from 'probable cause' to 'cause'. I also don't agree with the BOI presenting hypothesis as fact in some parts of their report.
Last edited by DICK DOLEMAN; 9th Mar 2006 at 17:48.