Of course the RO's beliefs were based on an incomplete picture - provided by the RO's own interpretation of the incomplete BOI; a self-induced 'mental illusion' if you like!
The BOI had concluded that nothing was certain but somehow the ROs managed to twist the fact the ac crashed into a hill that was IMC as definite proof that the crew were flying in IMC at low-level in the vicinity of the Mull 20 secs before. The two are not directly linked and cannot be proven with the requisite burden of proof.
This is because Holbrook said that he physically saw the ac below cloud approaching the Mull, close to the waypoint change - perhaps the most relevant piece of evidence in the whole BOI because if Mr Holbrook could see the ac, the crew could see him, so they were not in cloud.
Furthermore, there exists an element of doubt as to how far and how low the cloud extended - somehow, the ROs did not fully appreciate that those 9 witnesses on land (above approx 3-400 ft amsl) were in cloud and they could in no way describe the weather as seen from the cockpit of an ac that was below cloud. Also, the ROs missed the point that there were no witnesses below the cloud, near the shore, who could confirm (or deny) the extent of the cloud over the sea. Instead, the ROs based their findings/beliefs on the BOIs 'probable cause' - in itself the word 'probable' does not meet the burden of proof. Frankly, if RAF justice is only about some Staff Officer's 'beliefs' then the system really is FUBAH! Of course he would need proof and hard facts on which to base his findings - but there weren't any - just a belief!
Now, if the ac had purposefully entered cloud at 300ft, so close to the Mull that they could neither turn away onto a northerly heading to avoid land, slow down, nor immediately conduct an LL abort to safety altitude for the selected leg, then yes, the crew would have got it wrong. Even then, as there were possible outside effects (disorientaion/distraction/tightening wind etc), this is more an 'error of judgment' but not 'gross negligence'.
Despite not fully considering the impact of the lack of airworthiness (not serviceability) of the ac, which would have been a pre-disposing 'latent pathogen', the BOI stated that they could not positively dismiss distraction from an (over-common) transient engine fault, visual illusion, disorientation nor UFCM as contributory factors as to why they entered cloud. These further undermine the plausibility of the eventual 'probable cause' which itself was based on a somewhat-dubious Boeing simulation and the assumption that the ac was under control when it entered cloud. (If you assume you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'!)
Basically, there were few hard facts other than: a hillside strewn with debris, a sighting of the ac clear of cloud a few seconds before and the fact the hill above approx 300ft was in cloud. Without an ADR/CVR, everything about how they got from overhead Mr Holbrook's yacht to the hillside is supposition.
Nonetheless, I can understand how the ROs came to their conclusions - they are only human but they did get it wrong. However, I am not attaching blame to them (unless this was a wilful cover-up). But now with the benefit of hindsight, to blindly repeat their assertions makes the ROs look very foolish, stubborn and intransigent; as someone said - a little like the 'flat-earth society'! We would have greater respect for them if they could take off their blinkers and accept the considered opinions of the wider world, including their former Def Sec and PM, who would expect the ROs to be more flexible and mature in their thinking. I wonder, if Her Majesty agreed with her previous Prime Minister and his Def Sec, whether the ROs would remain so unmoved?.....Probably!
Last edited by flipster; 9th Jun 2009 at 17:14.