Valkyriejmp
The aircraft in question was not cleared to transit at that altitude and collided with the first bit of solid object after crossing the sea.
To what transit altitude are you referring?
The crew set out to transit under VFR to Inverness, and the Flight Authorisation Sheet will have included a mimimum altitude for the transit (I'm not a rotary pilot, but let's say 100 ft). The aircraft was seen shortly before the crash by the yachtsman, whose evidence indicated that ZD576 was probably at a few hundred feet above the water - perhaps you can explain what the aircraft wasn't cleared to be doing in this context?
Yes, the aircraft collided with the Mull, but that is not
per se an indication of 'Negligence' or even 'Aircrew Error' and there are several possible causes of the impact which
cannot be ruled out, meaning that 'Negligence' would be very tough to prove 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', let alone the 'Beyond any doubt whatsoever' that the (ex) Air Marshals claim to have satisfied and for which the 5 members of the House of Lords' Select Committee who, let's face it, ultimately have every motive for finding in favour of the Establishment, failed to find any grounds.