Walter,
We have met and spoken on several times, and I have listened with interest and politely to your theory - but on every occasion I have told you that in the absence of the ability for anyone to know what happened the Mull Group's strategy has been to work on the legal challenge and in areas where facts are available that show there could be a different explanation to that of pilot error associated with gross negligence, and hence generate the "doubt" that would make it even more impossible for the RAF to sustain a verdict based on speculation as they have done up to now. That as far as I can see has always been the purpose of this thread. Of course the relatives and many others would like to know what happened, but they, and we, never will, and there is nothing we can do about that.
Your ideas may or may not hold water - I am not a RW pilot but I have seen others who are rebut many of your theories. Where I might agree with you is that there could have been other factors influencing the verdict, and indeed as I have shown you there is very clear evidence that not all extant and highly relevant "facts" were made available to the BOI - these do not tell us the cause of the accident as you and everyone else would like, but they do give the basis for doubt and the legal challenge. Like everyone else you are entitled to your views, but, for example, I suggest that you could start a new thread which would allow you and others to expound your theories without detracting from the purpose of this thread which I believe still has one simple factual based objective - to clear the pilots of the unjust and unjustified charge of gross negligence. Your ideas, in the absence of proof, do not help this objective in any way.
Clearly we wait for SofS's response, which is now getting later and later than "promised". But, for example, if the MOD were to take the decision to re-open the Inquiry I assume that if you have complete confidence that you can prove your point then you would step forward to give such evidence.
JB