Walter K.
Sabotage has not conclusively been proved or otherwise. However, I am prepared to accept that as a possibility. It would only go to prove that pilot error was not the case.
Judging the distance from the Mull would have been with the Mk 1 eyeball - 3 pairs, actually. Experience born out of years of visual low flying, coupled with an awareness of the size and shape of the Mull, would have allowed the crew to judge fairly accurately the distance involved [something to do with visual spacial perception, or something like that].
Standard Flight Plan. I would suggest that Ft George as a regular venue for this kind of meeting would be unlikely. Rather, in the interests of security, the venue for regular meetings would have been varied to prevent a pattern developing. In any event, the VFR route would have been dictated by the prevailing weather conditions in the Highlands - unlikely that there would have been a 'standard route'.
As with most inertial nav systems, the pilot has the option at any time of selecting the next waypoint early, often in airliners used to cut corners as air traffic allows. Therefore, it is highly likely that seeing a slight deterioration in weather ahead, the flying pilot could have selected the next waypoint after the Mull to cut the corner and avoid the deterioration, at the same time maintaining visual with the coast, albeit slightly further out initially. Having safely turned to parallel the coast, they could then ease in closer. That's certainly what I would have done, as I suspect most of us who fly low level would have done.
Golf stopovers unlikely. More probably carrying their clubs in case they got stuck due weather or unserviceability at Ft George.
Re Boeing reference to TACAN.. This is entirely irrelevant and a grade one red herring. The Mull would have been between the ac and Machrihanish and therefore not locked on either in range or azimuth. It is likely that it was selected as belts and braces for when they were further up the coast and came into line of sight (for possible nav kit update?).
Flight plan would have been straight lines drawn between turning points, along which the ac would have been flown - approximately. The flying would have been done visually, with the TANS steers available instantly should IMC be encountered. The TANS route and data would be used for timing and speed maintenance purposed, not for 'which way to point next'.
The turn at the Mull would certainly have been planned to have been eyeballed, confirmed by the TANS steer, with the option to turn early and switch to the next waypoint as described above.
Only they didn't. Why? You can speculate all you like, but we will never know the answer for sure.
So many different factors could have come into play; the people that post on this forum have never stated categorically that it must have been one or the other.
Just that settling for pilot error is clearly not justified. Ergo, the fight goes on to have the decision reversed. And there are enough of us that are going to be around for a long time striving to do just that.
And a ban on Sqn members attending the memorial service - I am speechless with rage. I am not PC by any stretch of the imagination, but I would ram 'HUMAN RIGHTS' right where it hurts. I would encourage the press to vilify the pratt that made that decision.
Jacko - how about it?