In the interests of posting the noble Lords' sayings, and not just being TOO selective, I feel the next speaker says it all.
"There is no doubt in my mind that some of your Lordships who are confident of the propriety of the verdict of gross negligence have recounted the story of what happened as a narrative, telling us what the pilots did and where they went wrong and asserting that they were rash, that they did not take the weather into account and that they were flying too fast and too low. Like many narratives, it is delivered with great conviction. The people who have told it have frequently said that it is the only realistic or credible explanation. That is the power of the good story teller, who proceeds on the assumption that they know how it must have been and then we all believe it. As regards the standard of proof and there being no doubt whatsoever of the propriety of the verdict, one must begin to doubt—as, indeed, people, including the unanimous body of the Select Committee, did doubt—that that standard had been reached. One may argue that it is an impossibly high standard and that there can be no past events for which it is proper to say that there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards what happened. Nevertheless, those are the relevant words."
I try to apply logic as much as possible, and I would be interested to hear your explanation of the Waypoint change made by the crew before the Mull
. Why would they do it, and why do you think they selected a track which would take them over high ground when you obviously believe
"the aircraft WAS in cloud and NOT ? flying VFR (when they made the waypoint change)
" That is just NOT logical.The only LOGICAL explanation is that they had the Mull in sight and sequenced the waypoint. Exactly as the CO said
"This WP change is crucial in trying to understand what the crew intended to do."