Dalek, I am not disagreeing with the weather conditions given by any of the witnesses; I merely suggested that there may have been other `factual` evidence in support,ie sat pics,auto wx.stations on the Mull. Neither did I suggest that it was not a viable VFR sortie. In fact I had flown past the Mull earlier in the day( about 25 miles East) on a low-level training sortie to Lossie; The Mull was visible but had a`Cap` of cloud over the highest point,rather like `lenticular cloud`.There was an upper cloud layer,but they did not merge.
Further,the QNH at Aldgve/Portree was given as 990 MB,and it was what was set on the a/c altimeters,no quibble about that.However,the setting ,input on the S-TANS was 998mb,a difference of 240 ft.That was clearly incorrect,but it may have been from earlier in the day,when the pressure may have been higher,or just an error. Some of the `displays `used are not always `user friendly`,and 8/0 can look similar in some light conditions.An honest mistake,but one that the `end result `,heights determined by Racal(again,in good faith) have been used by the Board ,Without checking to determine the outcome.
Further,since the aircraft had already flown earlier in the day,and a `snag ` had been reported ,but not logged in the F700,would it not have been `a good idea` to have checked the previous data from that earlier sortie as well ?. Maybe,it might still be in the Racal vaults ??
Using a pencil and graph paper it is easily possible to confirm my analysis of the heights .