Walter, if this is a deluge I know not, but it is a response to your post. My point about the ship TACAN v handheld gizmo was not that the latter may not have functioned correctly, for it might well have done, but that the former is installed and calibrated on the ship to be used if necessary to make an approved approach to the ship in IMC conditions, whereas the latter could not have been with respect to the Mull LZ. It is for that reason that your:
They would not have been at fault if they were misled as to their closing range by a third party on the ground using this equipment.
is just plain wrong. Am I alone in this? It cannot be a serious contention that you can stand by a hillside with such a device and expect a pax loaded Chinook to rely on you to be in the right place in IMC and then to make an approach. Such action by the pilot would amount to Gross Negligence, to coin a well known phrase, surely? Or am I so out of touch that I should shuffle off in my slippers as has been previously suggested? Sorry, your quote has slipped me into bold, not intended!