Speed again
Walter,
I have always said the many photographs you posted are excellent and show the conditions that (probably) pertained at the Mull that day.
I also agree with you that it would be very easy to become victim of visual illusion on a day like that. This would make the accident Aircrew Error, not Gross Negligence.
If the crew were given by CPLS an incorrect range to the coast, this danger would increase significantly.
The big problem with your theory and that of the AM's is speed.
The aircraft impacted at IAS 149 (Cable)
The aircraft was at lower speed a minute or so earlier ( RACAL or Holbrook)
If the LZ was visible on the edge of the cloudbank and an approach was just possible, every instinct of every crew I have ever flown with would be to configure early and slow down.
I have never met anyone who would choose to deliberately accelerate in those conditions.
Speed by itself cannot conclusively prove anything. Both RACAL (remember 1.15 "may" and "not") and Hobrook may be wrong. But if we choose to disragard them we have no evidence at all.
If we accept the speed evidence then FADEC or team suicide are the only explanations.
Last edited by dalek; 25th May 2011 at 12:18.