bast0n:
Quote:
Well done LB - keep it up.
A chip off the old bast0n block, eh?
LB, instead of admonishing the style and language of others' posts, since we have a hierarchy of well respected moderators for that role (OK, I need the points!), your expertise and experience as a Meteorologist might be put to better use in addressing the met aspects of this accident. The MOD's case (and also that of their apologists who post here) is that because observers on the Mull were shrouded in mist and fog to varying degrees (caused by the orographic cloud covering the hill side), ipso facto the aircraft was in cloud at its turning point off shore. Thus the pilots failed to maintain VMC at that point and thus instantly became Grossly Negligent. All this despite another witness out to sea seeing them go past and who could make out the Mull shoreline as well.
I summarise of course, but does the MOD case make sense to you, given that it is crucial to the Reviewing Officers' Finding? Your input in this would be of great interest and much appreciated.
Regards, Chug
Regarding the Met. there seems to be little to add, in fact nothing, even allowing for the fact that I used to lecture RAF pupils on The Hazards of Weather as part of ab initio, refresher and Nav. courses.
May I point out that BastOn and langleybaston have no connection, living or dead, fictional or otherwise.