Hi again, Mr Purdey.
I know you and I have had this debate before, but as it has been raised again, I'm happy to rejoin.
I think, initially, to use your analogy of heat and light the only thing surrounding this issue is, in fact, a heathaze - if you will a blurring of fact and speculation.
You cannot say that the crew were not where they thought they were because you don't know what they were thinking. I accept that the aircraft was right of track, but can you, or anyone else, explain why a waypoint change was made, but there was no change in direction of flight? I have no idea myself.
BroomstickPilot,
The regulations were changed after this accident, removing the requirement of Boards of Inquiry to apportion responsibility (or blame, if you will). This was to ensure that the main focus returned to flight safety issues.
You are correct that the regulations in place at the time appear to have been broken - i.e. there was (and still is) doubt as to the accident.
Mr Purdey offers a convincing argument if you accept it in isolation. However, once you introduce elements of doubt, there appears to be a reluctance to acknowledge these doubts. That said, it's his opinion, and I don't have a problem with that. As I have said before, I just don't happen to agree with him.
As a follow on from a previous post, you may all like to hear that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland unanimously supported the view of the campaign. They are writing to the Prime Minister to request he overturn the unsustainable verdict.
My regards, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook