Gents,
Can we put the handbags away and allow things to cool a little in this rather cyclical argument?
I think Cows has put it rather aptly:
So we have two lines of thought that both offer doubt; one doubting the professionalism of the crew, the other doubting the airworthiness of the aircraft. Either way, each argument brings doubt to the other hypothesis
Personally, I think that both
hypotheses could be correct but because of the element of doubt in either view, the findings of the senior ROs were
totally inappropriate. Its that simple, really.
Sadly, there will be some who are too blinkered to see that.
Whether or not the ac crashed because of some unknown failure or because of crew error, it is becoming apparent that the military airworthiness system has been allowed to falter - the HC 2 is but one example.
No matter what your view on Mull, surely anyone remotely interested in Flight safety would agree that sorting this mess out, must be an immediate priority to prevent recurrence?