What is so worrying in all this is the stubborn resistance of the caz/baston/JP brigade to recognise that we ALL know it was 'flown' in IMC/cloud into a hill. We all know the Mull has frequent typical up-slope stratus. That has never been in dispute. Do the 3 of you understand that? I do hope so.
The key questions are the meaning of 'flown', and was there sufficient proof of deliberate action to justify the RO's 'finding'. This constant soap-boxing of the actual weather conditions does NOTHING to answer those questions and actually indicates a lack of understanding of how low-level flights are conducted by operational crew. Not one of you have offered any proof of negligence, only assumption. Like the ROs, you have simply ignored the clear requirements of a Board of Enquiry for reasons we know not.
I should add, as before stated, I do not see this campaign as a campaign to 'clear the pilots' names'. I see it as an effort to have a significant breach of Air Force instructions by the ROs over-turned, a clear admission that the Mk II was not 'fit for service' at the time and that tasking it for this mission was probably an error. We now have, in the public domain, the fact that the condition and suitability of at least 2 of the RAF's aircraft types was not ''fit for service'. A significant change since 1994 which casts doubt on the integrity of senior officers and politicians in this matter. I personally would settle for a cause 'not determined'.
It appears that in all probability, part of the Mull was visible at WPT change. That, I think, is a 'reasonable' assumption from the evidence.We know it continued towards the Mull and crashed in cloud. The gap here is what happened between those two events. It could have been 'gross negligence' indeed, but it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That was the requirement for judgement. It was not followed.