JP,
in those conditions at all.
You have been entirely consistent in this view but I cannot remember you ever giving a satisfactory answer, when asked, exactly what those conditions were,
as seen from the cockpit. All you have done is quoted the mantra of the witnesses on the Mull and, as far as I recall, tried to discredit the testimony of the only other witness, Mr Holbrook, because of apparent inconsistencies between his evidence given to the BOI and the HoL.
Here we go, around the buoys again, but I guess we always will until you can tell us what the view from the cockpit was, or at least, be able to remove any doubt whatsoever from your version of the events.
As far as I can see, the only solid (i.e. no doubt whatsoever) evidence we have is that they flew within 1 - 2 Km of a patch of fog. Everything else is speculation, surely a long way from the required conditions for the finding of gross negligence?