When discussing visibility, one should of course ignore the claims made by MoD, especially the ROs, in the immediate aftermath. I seem to recall the latter making a presentation implying cloud projected from the Mull a huge distance.
Even in early 2004, MoD claimed;
“Shortly afterwards (i.e. after waypoint change) the helicopter entered cloud about 850 metres from the Mull”.
Then, in an inexplicable surge of honesty not normally associated with MoD, in May 2004 Min(DP) admitted;
“Unfortunately, we are not able to say, even approximately, how far the cloud extended over the sea”.
A major uncertainty then, on a not insignificant point.
MoD has always refused a review, citing lack of “new” evidence. It seems they found some evidence and had to admit it drove a bus through the “facts” that helped underpin the verdict. Just how much evidence do they need to acknowledge doubt?