Tourist, I have no problem with what you've just said. But I sincerely do recommend you read the reports.
previous strobe due to distracting reflections
Now, this is where you and I definitely agree. Would you believe that the Reviewing Officers (FLEET) rejected the BoI President's recommendations because they said REFLECTIONS were completely irrelevant, and absolutely NOT to be considered when assessing a distraction. That one can only take into account DIRECT light. (The regs, which I tend to like implementing, much to your chagrin, say both Direct and Reflected/Glare). Another example of MoD re-writing the regs to suit the situation. Now, if you were evr in the position of having tyo accept a design, what would you say if the designer ignored reflected light? You'd bloody jump.
Of course, the irony is that FLEET's stance means they disagreed with the Service Deviation permitting lower forward to be switched off if the pilot saw reflected light. According to them, the reflected light had to be ignored.
Glad you agree there was a "previous strobe". I agree too. The IPT told the investigator there was no such thing. A quick look at any Sea King told him they told porkies. (In fact, I understand he was standing next to a series of photographs on the IPT office wall when they told him this!) Presumably one reason why his report was destroyed.
We're getting there.