Arthur Rowe,
It was not I who said that the Waypoint was misplotted, it was the BOI . My understanding was that the person who did the planning for that sortie, and a copy of whose map was left for the Duty Auth, agreed that the Waypoint had been misplotted. The BOI were also quite certain that the waypoint had been misplotted. The discrepancy was perhaps 2-3 secs flying time. The person who did the planning for that sortie could agree that the waypoint was misplotted because neither he nor his crew were involved in the fatal sortie.
This, not withstanding claims made by at least 3 different contributors that "they were there when JT did the planning for this sortie" - none of them mention the others who claimed to be there; they were (each and every one of them) alone in the Planning room with him. Now, with this para firmly in mind - start reading again from the beginning of para 1.
A minor misplot is not uncommon and, in the normal course of low level flight in VFR would give no cause for concern. In the circumstances of the accident however,there is no evidence that the weather conditions at the Mull even remotely approached conditions whereby it would have been safe to drive one's car at permitted max limits for the road; let alone fly a helicopter at low level at the IAS pertaining at impact. Given that the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy were Qualified Met Observers we can be reasonably sure that the weather model for the Mull used by the BOI was as correct as could be. They were also the people closest to the actual impact.