Yes, chinook - am I wrong in that quote, then? The reply was for Cazatou's post #5045. I agree thay have "already been discussed " but I was seeking something slightly more 'acceptable' to him.
The only other reference I have found in this thread is from 'Olive Oil' and says:
"The Board members ...................... The prescribed minima for flying visually, VFR, are horizontal visibility of 1 km beneath a cloud base of at least 250 feet, if flying below 140 knots;"
I see you are quoted as saying:
"Now Chinook240 mentions cloudbase figures of 100', 250' and 500' for various circumstances" but this has no official status as far as I can see.
Cazatou - starting with "BOAC
Then you will agree that they are different n'est pas?" - that post is gibberish! Essentially mil limits are the same. Operational exemptions are then granted for weather WORSE than those limits. As HUNDREDS of posters have said all along, the weather at the crash site is NOT in dispute. You were talking about the weather observed by the yachtsman, n'est ce pas? I have yet to see ANYONE claim VMC at impact. I actually think I have hit upon your problem at last, Cazatou - you are obviously under the impression that posters here think the crew were trying to fly over the Mull? There are only a few posters who suggest anything like that, I think, cannot recall names, but one nutter even suggested the crew were trying to 'skim', in IMC, over the Mull by a few hundred feet! Have a good look back through this and the preceding threads and assure yourself that no-one with any credibility actually believes that.