JP
Allow me, if I may, to respond to the question that you seem to imply, is crucial to this accident.
May I say, I am not unused to operating in this type of aircraft, and in conditions which may (or may not - who knows?) have been similar to those you seek to imply (for you cannot KNOW) were extant at the time.
If I were operating in conditions that were unequivocally suitable for flight in accordance with VFR (as seems to be confirmed by the evidence of the last eyewitness) I think I would be a little upset to be subsequently criticised by anyone who WAS NOT THERE. Particularly if their only criticism, was that based on their understanding of the rather limited evidence, I was heading towards an area that may, or may not have been suitable for VFR!
Why should I accept being held negligent whilst I was VFR!!!
Please do not take this as willy waving, it genuinely is not meant that way. However, what I have just described is the 'bread and butter' of SH flying. Military helicopters are frequently flown at the very margins of what is legally acceptable weather. I appreciate this is subtly different from how a fixed wing may be operated. I respectfully suggest that this reflects the superior flexibility of helicopters.
I note that both yourself and cazatou (K52) are more used to fixed wing ops.
I hope those with military rotary experience, who contribute to this thread, even the very few who do not agree with my well known position on the issue as a whole, can agree with what I have just written!
If the crew are indeed to be held negligent before waypoint change, the only important question is: "what was their INTENTION as they were flying towards the Mull?
I am happy to accept you pointing me towards the evidence that answers that question.