caz:
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change.
Now why on earth do you think that an investigation by the aircraft operating authority would "think" such a thing caz? That "thought" is in direct contradiction to their sole witness to the en-route transit, who saw the aircraft AND the Mull lighthouse at the same time, ie neither was then in cloud. The same sole witness who has been constantly belittled by the RAF and MOD ever since, ie by the operating and airworthiness authorities combined. Now why do you think they would do that, caz? Is it perhaps that their conjectured case against the pilots would then collapse? Is it perhaps that their own culpability in rushing an unairworthy aircraft type into service would then be seen as a possible reason for this accident as against not being even considered by their own inquiry? Ms. Mandy Rice-Davies once summed up the judiciary's tendency to cover its own tracks. I think her famous one liner applies here equally, ie "Well they would, wouldn't they?".