ShyTorque
You said:
But do remember that the yachtsman eyewitness (a Mr. Holbrook, iirc), changed his mind at least once.
Can't be certain what you mean, but I'm not sure I necessarily agree. As an adviser at the FAI, I saw Mr Holbrook on the witness stand. He is (was) a scientific instrument maker by trade, and he was a very convincing witness. When asked how he had judged the helicopter's height, (200-400') he stated he had used the height of the Mull lighthouse (which he knew precisely) as a reference, and built in a boundary of error. For Flying Lawyer, I don't believe any height assessment Holbrook made can be contradicted by the evidence of RNS252 Supertans. (Which itself is of course a piece of navigation equipment never designed, or intended to provide historical data.) As FL will recall, Holbrook's evidence is referenced to a fairly precise time. Whilst the Supertans 'snapshot' was referenced to a geographical location. Indeed some of Supertans data was wildly inaccurate, though conveniently 'excused'!
I believe it was right at the end of the first week's evidence, when out of frustration with one barrister's obtuse questioning, Holbrook volunteered: "If you are trying to ascertain whether I believe the pilots of the chinook could see the location of the Mull lighthouse? Then the answer is, yes I believe they could."
This is the last eyewitness to see ZD576.
ShyTorque, having spoken to him later, he was quite clear that whilst he hadn't mentioned this in his statement to the BOI, it wasn't a 'change' to his evidence. He simply hadn't been asked! The FAI saw an addition.
DOUBLEBOGEY still hasn't answered my question of what he meant when he said the "radar data was clear". Perhaps because he knows as well as I do that there WAS no 'radar data'! It's a made up 'fact'! He's making it up, along with many other of his assertions!
As for Agaricus. The reason 'gross negligence' was rightly overturned was simply because there were many potential causes of this accident. Only one of which was CFIT. But it is simply not possible, on the available evidence to say with any certainty which of these options caused the accident.
Opinions on this matter are as valuable, or worthless, as you wish them to be.
There's little else to say!