gullibell/llamaman
Good to see a bit of common sense amidst all this esoteric stuff on radar operation and crew responsibilities.
What stands out from all this is that we have the nonsense of a crew probably thinking they needed to descend to the highly risky height of 200ft at night to nominally be VFR according to SOPs (or maybe just did so because it was normal SAR technique) and then clout a 300ft rock - because of course it was night and they weren't VFR at all. There was full cloud cover and there was poor vis. All this debate about radar technique (which shouldn't have been essential if they were VFR) just proves that the risks of mis-interpretation and misuse were far greater than the risk of hitting anything descending in IMC with a normal profile, navigating with reference to GPS, planned by looking at VFR charts before they departed (which presumably didn't happen) to give maximum clearance to charted and known obstacles. And if they knew they weren't going to be VFR why on earth descend to 200ft? Just do a normal IMC let down profile, to keep as high as possible for as long as possible.
I may turn out to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this accident need never had happened if the crew had not been hamstrung with SOPs and just used their intelligence to perform a sensible let down procedure for what was after all just a refuel to a well established base. And if regulations didn't allow it they should be changed. They weren't searching for a life raft in the dark ocean for goodness sake.
I feel some posting here can't see the wood for the trees. I'm the first to admit, I've no SAR Experience so welcome any alternative views from those that do.