Caz,
If we turn this line of questioning on its head for a minute; what you are categorically saying, 'with absolutely no doubt whatsoever', is that
at the point of WP change or before, that the weather was not fit for VFR ie less than 1nm horizontal vis and the ac was not 'clear of cloud, in sight of surface'?
Well if so, you are either a clairvoyant or daft.
Why?
1. Even G/C Pulford now admits that a WP change on the TANS would indicate that the crew were 'visual' with the WP (ie the lighthouse), the general area or at least intending to navigate to the next WP (Corran), staying seaward of the Mull by turning left and following the coast.
2. The lone yachtsman (with or without his cabin boy), who was on the sea and visual with the ac, estimated
at worst weather as 1nm in haze and the ac at 3-400ft. This estimation has increased over the years - but even at its worst, the ac was VFR. Please bear in mind that the public generally underestimate the altitude of low-flying ac and the visibility. In many people's opinion the weather was probably a lot better than Mr Holbrook originally estimated. The trouble is that this is our most accurate and relevent estimation - as others have mentioned - the other observers were all ashore, up or near the hills and certainly not near where the ac was at the WP change.
3. Even the worst of the weather, on the Mull itself, had a cloudbase of about 300 ft (defined by lighthouse area) but admittedly, the vis below was worse - but the ac didn't go there, it eventually climbed into cloud, didn't turn far enough away from the Mull and then crashed into the high ground, some distance from the lighthouse. But what all the ROs seem to say is that because they crashed, the crew failed in their duty to keep their crew and passengers safe.
But that does NOT mean that the crew were negligent - as no-one wilfully wants to crash. This fact is crucial but the ROs can't see the difference - strange? Its like saying that because you crash your car in fog, you do so on purpose and therefore, it must be your fault and you must be negligent, without considering all the outside influences - which is barmy, for sure!
I think it would a very blinkered person to dismiss the fact that there may have been many mitigating circumstances or influencing factors in the case of ZD576 - especially as so much has come to light, or become more significant, after the BOI was completed.
Even in light of the original BOI, Pulford admitted that there may have been mitigating circumstances and he does not specifically mention 'negligence' in his comments - but Day and Wratten do. Sadly, none of these 3 men seemed to ask that all-important question....."why did the crew climb into cloud when they had almost certainly been VFR below?"
Once again, we come back to the FACT that no-one alive knows the answer to that one (mainly because ther was no CVR/ADR), which is the crux of the whole matter and as such, the 2nd and 3rd RO findings cannot match the burden of proof - 'with no doubt whatsoever'. The ROs have assumed that the crew commenced an inappropriately slow climb to S'alt - but we all know the dictum about 'ASS-U-ME'.
To me, all that Wratten, Day, the MoD (and their apparatchiks) can maintain is that "the ac crashed - with absolutely no doubt whatsoever"! In this respect they are, of course, correct. Regrettably, however, they seem unwilling to continue to ask the simple question 'why?' because, I suspect, they won't like the possible answers.
Oh Olive, I think the crew were a normal SF crew, if that helps!!!
!