Circles, circles, and largely of your making, JP.
So thats your answer, then? That you wish the finding did not stand, whilst supporting its flimsy 'evidence' as fact.
The point is that they should not have been so close to the Mull at low level in those conditions.
Why not? We've been over the rules already. The only time we know they were in cloud, is when they crashed. Just before, they were seen in clear air. If you can prove (i.e produce FACTS and EVIDENCE, not suggestion and theory) why they wound up in these desperate straits, pray tell.
Can someone suggest why they did not turn away up the coast?
That's what we'd all have expected them to do. The suggestions, from the possible, through to the fanciful, have been made elsewhere in this thread. FACT is, nobody knows why not. Therefore the finding MUST be unsafe.
What can't you grasp in:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found