JP, I cannot actually believe you said:
It seems to me thereore that the crew were likely to be relying on a visual fix as they coasted in, and tragically got it wrong.
They had not intention of 'COASTING IN', therefore any arguement you have about mis-identing a lighthouse or whatever is ENTIRELY irrelevant.
That they DID coast in meant [to me at least] that they did not have control over the aircraft flying systems. I have flown thousands of hours at low level, including the Mull area, and in similar circumstances weather-wise, and I can assure you that I would NEVER have continued in a straight line towards the cloud-covered hills IF I COULD PREVENT IT.
I really cannot figure out your arguments. You seem to be missing the whole point of this thread: NOBODY CAN SAY, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, WHY THESE TWO HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PILOTS ALLOWED THE AIRCRAFT TO FLY INTO SOLID GROUND. All of us can theorise until the cows come home, but even if one of us hit the nail on the head describing precisely what caused the accident, IT CANNOT BE PROVED.
I hope that I have clarified the position. Now please stop claiming that you know what happened, because you can't.
I, too, will heed An Teallach's advice.