Brian, allow me to assist.
I helped Cazatou (K52)'s allegation regarding Mr Holbrook on page 97, and again on page 116.
Here it is repeated
ONCE AGAIN for those who missed it first time, or for anyone who is 'hard of hearing'!
Cazatou
Perhaps you have forgotten a previous conversation between us on page 97:
Quote:
Tandemrotor
Over 500 posts. I really must consider clicking here so I can order a Personal Title.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 562
Oh dear
As FJJP so rightly states, we have, of course been round this particular block before. You do however raise an intesesting point, that I at least had not previously noted.
There is indeed a paragraph in the BOI which states:
Quote:
"The aircraft was sighted by a yachtsman approximately 2-3 nm from the Mull of Kintyre, flying at high speed in a level attitude towards the Mull."
This can only have come from a question, and response, in his evidence to the BOI, which was:
Quote:
Q2. How does the height and speed of the helicopter you saw on 2 Jun 94 compare with the Sea Kings you have seen in the past?
A2. I have seen Sea Kings in 2 attitudes firstly in level flight and secondly in the hover, I would comment that in terms of speed the aircraft I saw on 2 Jun 94 was somewhat faster than Sea Kings in level flight and at a height higher than Sea Kings when they are hovering but comparable with Sea Kings in level flight.
No other information regarding aircraft speed was either sought by the BOI, nor given by the yachtsman!
You will of course note that while the term "high speed" in the BOI is attributed to the yachtsmans evidence, no such term is present in that evidence!
We now turn to his evidence at the FAI when, standing in the dock, he stated:
Quote:
"Again, with the proviso that I only saw this aircraft for a few seconds and I am not an expert in these matters but I would have estimated it's speed to be something between 60 and 80 knots if I had to put a figure on it.
Cross examined: "I take it you accept that that is just, as you have said very fairly, your estimate of it?" -
"Sure, but it was not moving any more rapidly......This is the first time I had seen a twin-rotor blade helicopter and it wasn't moving at an undue speed relative to a Sea King which would have been engaged in looking at the sea surface for example."
Later in his evidence he states:
Quote:
Cross examined "Your estimate of the speed of this helicopter, how was that done?"
"I was asked how was that done? Probably the only reference I have to that is helicopter activity off Troon. The movement from moving to being stationary.
Cross examined "So you had seen other helicopters flying around?"
"I know what 30 knots looks like in a boat so I would have been able to multiply that up and that is it. That is the limit of my understanding of speed.
Cross examined: "So you think it might have been between two or three times faster".....? -
"Yes, it was not going at a helluva speed. It wasn't moving at a speed that would have caused me to remark on it in any way (at) all in terms of moving very rapidly from A to B and that is what caused me to think maybe it was looking, that there was some sort of event and it was looking for somebody."
So cazatou, and in summary, you will see:
1) Nothing in the yachtsman's evidence to the FAI either contradicted, or even "amended" (correct error in, make minor alteration in) his original evidence to the BOI. He simply had more opportunity to clarify.
2) The BOI's only question regarding aircraft speed, was too limited to illicit the accurate information that may otherwise have been available. And there was no follow up question. It was a 'bad' question.
3) It would appear the BOI were incorrect to cite the yachtsman's testimony, as evidence of the aircraft's 'high speed'. He simply NEVER said that!
As you will know, and now it has been demonstrated he was a reliable witness, he also had some very interesting things to say about the weather.
Would you like to debate that next?
BTW
Could you please point me in the direction of the testimony that leads you to suggest he does "not now consider the speed to be as high as he had previously stated and that he had amended his viewpoint after watching RN Sea Kings approach to land at Prestwick."
I can't seem to find it.
Last edited by Tandemrotor : 15th March 2006 at 00:30.
Your quotation regarding Mr Holbrook's assessment of speed is highly selective, and incomplete.
But I told you that already on page 97.
Have you got it yet????
The reason that it is problematic to prove negligence BEFORE waypoint change is this:
NO RECORDED EVIDENCE WHATEVER, EXISTS AT ANY MOMENT IN THE MINUTES OR SECONDS PRIOR TO WAYPOINT CHANGE
Sailing round the same old bouys!