flipster
<<Apparently, HQ 1 Gp kept a list of 'approved' LZs - I'm sure it would be mentioned ...>> Whether mentioned or not, several sources had it that Chinooks (let alone other mil helos) had landed there on previous occassions.
<<However, the speed of the ac at impact would preclude such an idea (too fast for approach/landing)....>> er, but they may have thought they were further away and may have intended just a low pass – they had started to slow down (in terms of TAS from dist/time calcs by Boeing) – and when they want to these beasts can slow down real quick (have you not seen their agility at airshows?) - that is to say, they don't need much room to slow down – and, as I have pointed out, had their track been over the LZ they would have had a simple wave-off option.
<<BTW, Chinook experts tell me that the engine indications found by the AAIB only tell us that the engines had stopped and run down in the same way. In no way does this tell us what the engines were doing beforehand. Anyone who states that the engines were 'fully serviceable' is guessing.>> There is also the testimony of one of the lighthouse keepers which had it that the engines had not noticeably varied on their approach to the impact point (the human ear is very good at discerning changes in pitch etc). Just picking away, are you?
Still none of you will ask around about the system I have suggested nor have you attempted to address the possibility that they had been misled as to the position of a known LZ that they crashed so close to whilst apparently on the best line to it and with an appropriate QFE for approaching it and with a RADALT warning set appropriately for an imminent landing. Do you not have an obligation to those on board that day to at least consider such a scenario? - just in case?