Can someone enlighten me as to the real worth of Mr Holbrook’s perception of the a/c speed? I can fully appreciate his evidence concerning weather, visibility, etc must be valuable (although inconclusive, given his sea-level viewpoint) but from what I have read he reluctantly, and only when pressed, benchmarked his speed estimation on that of a few Sea Kings seen flying near Troon. MoD says the typical speed of a Sea King is 100-110 knots, but that is disingenuous (as are most of MoD’s utterances on this subject). I’m no flyer, but any Sea King around those parts must be from Gannet and their activities (in simple terms) would range from a short slow transit toward, for example, Arran (a few miles) to practice ASW, to full speed on a SAR mission. Seems to me that this is a devious MoD device to detract from known facts (failure of airworthiness processes, unserviceability, fault history, etc) which were withheld from the inquisitors. Through no fault of his own, Mr Holbrook was placed in an invidious position, and too much is made of his fleeting view of something that would not ordinarily detract him, and probably only registered in hindsight following the crash. I have a great interest in military a/c, but I don’t stand in my garden watching the Chinooks flying overhead wondering “How high/fast is she going, and in what attitude?” And I wouldn’t expect a court to seek my evidence, never mind accept it as gospel. That’s what ADRs are for (which MoD doesn’t like being reminded of).
The MoD rests its case on three self imposed pillars – legal, technical and airmanship. To satisfy their own criteria for gross negligence, each must have rock solid foundations. The first two have collapsed entirely, and the last rests on quicksand.