Hi again, Mr Purdey.
Let's take your numbered points and expand a little shall we?
1. Aircraft under control just prior to waypoint change - speculation that both sides appear to accept. There is no hard evidence.
2. Low level at the time of sighting by Mr Holbrook- shock horror! no argument here.
3. Speed around 150kts - impact data taken from instrument involved in crash. Manufacturer's guidelines state that the information contained is not reliable enough as an accident data recorder (My words not theirs).
4. Fog / cloud over the Mull - As the lighthouse keeper was stood in it, can he please tell me how far out from the Mull the cloud extended? Perhaps Mr Holbrook, who was looking from the same direction as the Chinook, may be a better judge of the thickness of the covering. Why does everyone pay less credence to his evidence? It is just as valid as everyone else.
5. Aircraft right of track - Again, speculation from instrumentation that has been known to give erroneous readings.
6. Height of lighthouse - Yup!
7. Height of terrain at impact - Yup!
8. Sudden confrontation of terrain - Speculation. There were no eye witnesses or survivors. They may have seen it coming and been unable to do anything about it.
9. Final movements of aircraft - Probable, but again a reconstruction reached from the resulting witness marks and aircraft wreckage. However, I'm happy to agree on this too. (Always finish on a positive note).
As I mentioned in my previous posting, these are simply my views and interpretations. Would you agree that it is possible to look at the evidence and have both views - yours and mine? I would.
As a conclusion, and to answer your last paragraph, I have to say that I can offer no explanation whatsoever as to why the accident occurred. Then again, with few genuine facts, no-one can.
As always, I'm happy to conceed to proven points and wherever I've got it wrong.
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 4th Nov 2002 at 17:44.