Tandemrotor
DOUBLE BOGEY didn't bring the Mull accident into this discussion. It was brought in, unfortunately IMHO, by Agaricus bisporus.
Agaricus bisporus
the Mull accident itself was in all probability plain CFIT
the appalling decision to apply the phrase "gross professional misconduct" (iirc) to the Mull pilots rightly created a sh!tstorm. That I unhesitatingly agree was wrong, utterly wrong
I'm pleased to see you've toned down your views a little.
Even after the publication of the extremely thorough Mull of Kintyre Review, you continued to argue (in the Chinook thread in the Mil forum) that the pilots were grossly negligent:
it is pretty clear also that had the definition been properly worded (ie, beyond reasonable...) then that GN charge would still have been made and would stick to this day unchallenged.
In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT.
Even if the standard of proof required had been 'beyond reasonable doubt' (it was much higher than that, for very good reasons) I disagree with you - for the reasons given by the original BOI which were set out in detail and upheld by the Review.
That isn't an intellectually rigorous process.
No comment.
DB
Just for a moment consider the relatives of the Pax. They might reasonably ask why the AC was less than 1 mile from the Mull, doing 170 knots Groundspeed below 500 feet heading straight at the mountain shrouded in fog.
It would be entirely reasonable for them to ask that question.
The answer is: No-one knows.
Nobody was in a position to give a precise description of the either the cloud situation or the visibility over the south end of the Mull of Kintyre
as they appeared to the pilots as they approached from the south west.
Although the BOI were reasonably certain that the helicopter was flying fast at low level in proximity to the southern end of the Mull, in the absence of a CVR, a flight data recorder or the evidence of the crew or any other witness, they could not know how or why the crew got into that situation.
All the BOI were able to do was to put forward three possible scenarios as to the cause of the accident and, because they believed their ToR required them to choose one, they chose the one they considered to be the most probable.
we are all entitled to reasonable opinions provided they are supported by our experience and intelligence
Do you mean a hunch?
NB: When I refer to the BOI I mean the Board presided over by Wg Cdr (as he then was) Andy Pulford – before AOC No1 Group and AOC-in-C Strike Command came to different conclusions based upon their 'experience and intelligence'.
The Review considered their reasoning to be flawed and rejected their conclusions. It upheld the findings of Andy Pulford's Board.
(He became Chief of the Air Staff in July last year.)
FL