OK, I'll make comment, despite being asked not to prior to the conclusion of the current Review.
Good to see that we are still discussing the weather.
Caz, Mr Holbrook does not deny what he said to the FAI. Here is his evidence to the Select Committee:
624. Quite. I must put to you, three questions only were asked to you by the Board. You were asked: "At the time you saw the aircraft could you see the physical features of the cliffs on the Mull?" You said "No". Was that correct?
A. That is correct. What I could see on the Mull was not the physical features of the cliffs.
625. But could you see that the Mull was there, so to speak, that there was land there?
A. Yes, and in particular the lighthouse because of the colour contrast.
626. Because of the colour of the lighthouse?
A. The lighthouse compound, not the lighthouse building, the lighthouse compound.
627. That of course includes the keepers' houses.
A. I don't know where the keepers' houses are but there are several outbuildings and in particular this white perimeter fence which is quite extensive.
628. And the engine house is probably painted white as well.
A. Correct.
629. As you will appreciate, there has been some criticism of your evidence about visibility. To the Sheriff you said: "visibility at sea level was certainly in excess of three miles and possibly five." Do I understand that that was a reference to what you have just told us a moment ago, visibility towards the island of Rathlin?
A. That is correct.
I hope that the evidence of Mr Holbrook's (who was not stood inside fog) can now be accepted. In addition, the video shot by the holidaymakers (some 5-10 minutes prior to the accident) clearly shows that the cloudbase did not extend too far out, nor did it follow the contour of the landmass right down to the water.
Not long to wait now.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook