Cazatou
You suggest an inconsistency on the point of Mark Holbrook's evidence, in sharp contrast to ear witnesses upon the Mull.
The Lords found the following:
---
(Sir William Wratten) ... Mr Holbrook, in particular, changed profoundly what he said to the FAI from what he said to the Board of Inquiry.
Chairman: I think, in fairness to Mr Holbrook, it should be said that before the Board, I think, he was asked two or three questions, and that was about it; before the Sheriff, he was subject to cross-examination by counsel for the Ministry of Defence and others, so his evidence was tested far more. And, just in case it is thought that he had an interest in this matter, he came here because we asked him to, and he did not ask to appear, or anything, we asked him out of the blue.
----
Your failure to present this context is grossly unfair.
---
You also declare that "Data extracted from the SuperTANS showed that Waypoint Change to Corran was selected 0.81 NM from the first waypoint (0.95 NM from impact)."
To the Lords we go again:
152. We have approached the foregoing question upon the basis that the way point change was made when the aircraft was some 600 metres from the cliff. This assumes that the position divulged by the TANS was precisely accurate - an assumption which may not be justified. It will be remembered that the TANS recorded the height above sea level of the point of impact as 665 ft (± 50), whereas in fact it was 810 ft (see above, para 53). If the aircraft had been on the programmed track it would probably have been 1 kilometre from land ahead at the way point change and there is no suggestion that an alteration of course at that point would have resulted in a crash.
---
Much doubt and debate. AP3207 remains unsatisfied.