I wonder if I might propose a diversion from the thrust and parry of this current exchange?
My 3 'combatants' (Caz, JP and Baston, of course) all claim either by PM or on the thread a significant experience of 'operational' low flying. I would at this time like to put aside ANY questions of crew competence, negligence, secret beacons or whatever which creates such angst and have no bearing on the following. I have some basic questions for them, with their 'experienced' hats on, which I would expect they can easily answer:-
1) Given the various 'doubts' over the suitability of the Mk II for ops, including the deceased crew's request for a Mk I, do they think the flight was correctly tasked? Presumably the lack of available f/w indicates a reasonably short-notice task which might make it essential to use a heli?
2) Given the weather conditions (which we know in fair detail), how would they, as responsible officers, have expected the flight to be conducted? Indeed, how would they have conducted it themselves if so tasked - or would they have refused it?
To get the ball rolling, I'll kick off with my answers:-.
1) If there really was no question of a f/w or Mk I, then yes it was - for a high-priority short-notice task.
2) I would have expected the same route and plan - and accepted it as a qualified crew. I would have aimed to avoid the cloud-covered Mull and to remain at low-level for the whole route, as I'm sure they did.