AC/JP
Very nice post but please excuse the pedant in me as I attempt to poke a hole or to in the flawed logic in it. However it does not really address the extremely easy question I posed, excuse the repetition
"Lets try an easy one then, you have offered us two possibilities as to what the crew could see out of the flight deck windows, considering of course this is sheer speculation, completely lacking any proof technical or otherwise .
Which is right and which is wrong and why?"
Whilst you consider that could you also consider the couple of problems I have with your last post
The only option in prudent airmanship would have been to turn away when visibility was less than 1km......If no one knows what was seen from the flt deck windows at what point did the vis drop below 1Km?
From OC RAF Odihams unpublished comments you state
Moreover, there is general agreement, that the crew, in some unknown way, 'got it wrong'". How does " in some unknown way" satisfy the verdict in this case?
You also assert that "Crawford was careful not to go the whole distance in his formal comments but clearly he and colleagues were of the view that this was human failings."
which if you spin it about a bit could also read as
"Despite his and his colleagues view that this accident may well have been caused by human failings Crawford quite rightly kept his council as the investigation would only deal with factual evidence, not supposition"
Another simple question for you to ponder
If no one alive actually knows exactly what happened that day how does that satisfy the verdict conditons in this case?
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 11th Mar 2009 at 12:21.