PKPF68-77,
welcome to the thread.
The full control of the aircraft is a statement that may be true, but the Air Accident Investigation Branch investigator could not positively verify the serviceability of the Chinook prior to the accident. Please don't think I'm saying that the aircraft wasn't serviceable. I don't know. Please also bear in mind that the burden of proof required to find deceased pilots guilty of negligence is "Absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So, any doubt - no matter how small, undermines the Mod's argument.
With your expertise in weather, I'm sure you will understand why I have expressed concerns over the reliance of the MoD on the evidence of those who were unfortunate to have been on the Mull at the time of the accident. The MoD states that as the witnesses were in cloud, so must the Mull have been completely covered in cloud and that it extended out from the Mull for some distance.
Am I wrong in thinking that when stood in cloud, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to state how far out the cloud extends - both away from you and how far down a hillside it goes. Please don't think I'm being flippant. I'm not, and would value an opinion from someone with more expertise in this field than I have. The MoD rely heavily on these witnesses and disregard the evidence from someone who is looking at the Mull from the same direction as the Chinook.
It would be worth your while having a look over the many posts in this thread as you would then see where the Campaign is coming from. As has been mentioned already, look also at the reasoned arguments by those who have a different view to me (and many others) and then make up your mind as to what you believe. If it ends up a differing view to me, that's absolutely fine, but I would be grateful for your opinion on the weather question.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook