Dalek #4994
<<Visibility is difficult to assess over land and impossible over the sea.>> Quite agree, and I add, perception of distance varies greatly with visibility.
Your example is a very good illustration of the most probable situation they were in regarding theor spatial orientation but I would qualify this bit <<What if the TANS is lying?>> - Flt Lt Tapper for one would not have trusted the TANS to be accurate, so I would suggest What if the equipment he was referring to was lying?
<<So what have we now. "Gross negligence" or "error of judgment" partly induced by equipment error.>> - definitely the latter of these two options what if the equipment misled them because the party on the ground with the ground equipment was out of position? - no fault at all? - what about their speed? - were they instructed to do a fast approach? We would need to get to the details of the planning to establish any of this. Just the existence of another piece of nav equipment or an extra task not disclosed so far would make the existing harsh verdict unsustainable the full details would either exonerate them or at least apportion a fairer degree of blame.
Airborne Aircrew #4992
<<This comes with the understanding that each data point that is missing, questionable or that goes unconsidered is a point of doubt as to the integrity of the scenario. >> Quite right, but if all the data fits? What item of available data does not fit with the scenario I have put forward? - individual points have been argued but have they not held true? The only block I see is the denial that such equipment was fitted it sure as hell looks like it was and the initial denials were puerile. It would be nice if someone would come forward on the open forum describing its fit and function on HC2 Chinooks a few months after the crash.