The senior reviewing officers of the Chinook BOI concluded that the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima.
This is the crux of the argument for finding the pilots negligent and the statement incenses me. After Waypoint change, how do we know that they were flying (ie in control of) the aircraft at all? The reference to 'deteriorating visibility' is designed to imply recklessness, but, in all probablity, the weather away from the oragraphic lifting effect of the Mull was entirely suitable for a Support Helicopter to transit at low(ish) altitude; indeed, it is almost irrelevant how bad the vis on the Mull was because the crew appear to have chosen not to fly to the planned turning point, as witnessed by the Waypoint Change.
True, they crashed in conditions that did not comply with their VFR minima, but I suggest that it is entirely possible that they had not chosen to be there, and were not in control of their aircraft for a period of time prior to impact.
JP asks
We really must not go round exactly the same bouys as before, but can anyone offer an alternative and credible explanation?
John, several possible explanations have been made, but you (and others, including Air Marshals Wratten & Day) disagree that they are credible. Yet, to use my favourite example quoted several times on this thread, and alluded to above, another case exists of a similar Chinook that flew in a different direction to that intended by the pilots, which was out of control for a significant period of time and which subsequently landed. Despite exhaustive engineering examination, no fault could be found in the intact airframe. It happened, (is therefore
de facto credible, so why do you dismiss it even as a 'possibility'? Please discuss.