I too have no idea what evidence or expert witnesses to the weather were recorded by the BoI, other than those on the Mull engulfed in fog and the yachtsman who wasn't. I would hazard a guess though that if any others were it would be in accord with the predisposed scenario that allowed an explanation of pilot error to be issued within mere hours of the tragedy. No-one is expecting such evidence from you here LB, any more than from other aircrew or engineers that have posted. All I ask is for your professional opinion on the MOD premiss that the orographic formation on the Mull hillside that day would have necessarily extended out to sea at least as far as the TP, thus justifying in their view the RO's finding. That appears to be in direct conflict with the one eye witness observing the helicopter and the Mull from seawards. He said that the former was clear of cloud and even reflecting sun light, while the mass of the latter could be determined despite the cloud and mist hugging its slopes, and that he could make out geographical features above the shoreline. Which of those two accounts seems the more likely to have been the case, LB? The former, composed after the event by theorists with an agenda, or the latter of a yachtsman recalling on oath what he had seen? Just a professional opinion, that's all I ask for.
Oh, edited to add that I believe that the MOD has since admitted that no-one can be certain of the weather conditions that day other than at the Mull itself, but that in the absence of "new" evidence the finding stands. How does that strike you?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 16th Jan 2011 at 14:25.
Reason: added later MOD statement