John Purdey,
Thank you for your, as ever, polite reply. I didn't miss your earlier posts on the subject, but many opinions have been expressed on this thread and remembering exact positiions taken by each individual contributor is beyond my brain capacity. Thankfully, Pulse 1 pointed me in the right direction and I am now able to confirm your position (wouldn't it have been more polite simply to express it again?
), which is:
We do not of course know what the crew could see ahead of them, but the reports we have make it clear that there was cloud/mist/fog (take your pick) over some or all of those hilltops. I do know those hills, and I simply say that I myself would have turned away, especially since, having just made a sea crossing, I could not have known without any doubt whatever that I knew precisely where I was.
We know from the yachtsman's evidence that the visibility outside of the clouds was "certainly in excess of 3 miles and possibly 5 miles". Further, he stated that, at the time of the accident, he could see the Antrim coast, which was 7 miles away.
Having flown in the area on many occasions, it is quite normal for excellent visibilty to exist outside any low cloud/hill fog patches and it is improbable that the pilots could not see the base of the Mull with the clouds sitting on it, when the waypoint change was made. Indeed, it is quite likely that, given their higher altitude (than the yachtsman's) this phenomenon was visible on (or soon after) crossing the Irish coast, just 16 nm from the Mull.
With a perfectly legal 5 nm (or more) visibility (even for flight in a fast jet at far higher speeds) the crew continued visually towards the hill, waiting for the appropriate moment to turn left towards Corran. There is nothing negligent in the course of action that I have just described.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what I'm missing up to the Waypoint change? Merry Christmas to you and yours.