DOUBLE BOGEY
I posted the entirety of the evidence relating to height including the ST data in post #64 in order to provide all the relevant information for those who have not read the reports in detail, or at all.
Surely it was very clear from what I posted that, in this instance, the witness's upper estimate was reasonably accurate? If I had been trying to "fool" or "hoodwink" anyone, as you suggest, I would not have posted the ST data.
Perhaps my general comment about the unreliability of height estimates was superfluous in this instance – although his lower estimate was way out (relative to the height being discussed). I readily admit that it is a hobby-horse of mine because, over the years, I've seen many pilots put at risk in court (prosecutions and civil actions) by the inaccurate estimates of witnesses.
You are correct. I have never flown commercially and, although I was fortunate to be taught to fly by the RAF, I have never flown in the military.
I have never claimed to be an experienced pilot. I've been lucky to get wider experience than many PPLs but that doesn't make me an experienced pilot.
I have not offered any opinion about what happened and would not presume to do so. (I find it irritating when PPLs, and even non-pilots, spoil the flow of discussions with their theories and argue with professionals in areas in which they have no expertise or experience. I confine myself to those aspects of discussions where I do have expertise and experience.)
However, this is an Aviation forum not a forum of Law and as such the perspective of a Lawyer may differ considerably from the perspective of an operational pilot.
I agree. I have focused on the evidence. I'm a lawyer so naturally I would.
You clearly have enormous experience of flying in challenging conditions. I respect that. (A few years ago, I travelled to Aberdeen in the hope of observing the sort of conditions with which off-shore pilots often have to deal. Unfortunately, for my purposes, the weather on both my jumpseat flights out to rigs was benign:
Bristow Aberdeen)
I don't have the same experience as you, but I do have many years' experience of studying accident reports (AAIB & BOI), working closely with experts in accident investigation and aviation matters, examining evidence and dealing with aviation fatal accident cases.
Is it your view that I don't have appropriate experience to comment upon the evidence or, more to the point, the lack of it?
I disagreed with your interpretation of the absence of evidence of a defect in the helicopter, pointing out the extent of the damage and referring to the AAIB expert's comment about it
I pointed out that a causative defect could not be discounted. I did not suggest that the accident was caused by a defect.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to make such comments?
I have also been critical of the BOI procedure then in force. The independent Review concluded that the BOI "was conducted under a system which was, by generally accepted standards of justice and fairness, manifestly unfair to deceased aircrew." That is also my view.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to express such an opinion?
I repeat: I have not offered any opinion about what happened.
I have a hunch, based upon my experience of dealing with such matters, but I would not presume to post it.
For some reason, you appear to assume that I disagree with your view about what happened.
FL