John Purdey
Talk about spin, indeed!
You wrote (#2495):
<<It is absolutely certain, without any doubt whatever,as they say, or as you ask, with 100% certainty, that the aircraft was at low level and high speed heading towards cloud-covered high ground.>>
and later:
<< being at low level, high speed and heading towards those hills in those IMC conditions was itself the negligence >>
.
Try a different spin, like this:
The aircraft was traveling in good VFR conditions (in sight of the sea below; several miles in all directions apart from straight ahead; clear ahead until the Mull shoreline not breaking any rules in this respect for a helicopter until they cross the shoreline),
at a low level which was midway between the surface of the sea and the cloud base (ie nothing wrong with their choice of altitude in the conditions)
and at a speed which was well within the cruise range for the type (check manufacturers specs at that altitude, ambient temperature, and all up weight they had power to spare as is incidentally proven by the application of cruise climb without loss of speed) and therefore an entirely appropriate speed for the purposes of the flight and which should not be described as high (unless they knowingly got too close to the shoreline).
.
As it was their intention to make a slight turn to the left close in to the Mull and go up the shoreline, which would not have required them to slow down, all that they did wrong was get too close a judgment error rather than negligently breaking the rules.
.
Why they got too close and even made a steer to the right is a moot point when it comes to the issue of negligence without any other factors being known, they were hardly guilty of gross negligence on the above argument it is only misleading spin on their actions, confusion as to their intended route near the Mull, and misrepresentation of the conditions that sells the idea that the pilots were negligent. This spin is so apparent in the transcripts of the inquiries along with a good deal of general obfuscation.
.
If you compare this treatment with other crashes you would have to wonder why there seemed such an effort to blame the pilots most harshly in my opinion, it was to allay public concerns about sabotage as soon as possible as any such perception could have caused civil unrest in NI at the time the public would think that for the pilots to be so harshly judged they must have been at fault beyond doubt.
Over many posts I have made it clear as to why I think they steered right and carried on after waypoint change.