But they knew that they were close to land...they knew that they were flying near to the Mull....and you are suggesting that they couldn't see it...?
Yes, yes and yes... The illusion created by the cloud "hid" the hill that the pilots thought was slightly to their left having misidentified the fog site as the lighthouse that JP quite clearly states look very similar.
As JP stated had they come ashore closer to the lighthouse, (where they
expected to), then they would have had 300' more leeway with regard to height on their track. In my scenario I accept JP's proposition that they came ashore alongside the fog station and therefore no longer had that 300' of airspace ahead.
Place yourself in their position. You
think you just came ashore at the lighthouse and looking at the map and your track you see that, (were you actually on that track), the higher ground would be to your left as you proceed, (Per JP's own writing). While looking in that direction you see obvious cloud that you don't turn towards because you don't want to enter IMC and you "know", (erroneously because the high ground you expect to be there is dead ahead), there to be a hill hidden in it.
At this time, on this day, the weather factors combine to create the illusion directly ahead of the aircraft, (where the pilots believe the lower ground to be - and it would be if they had come ashore at the lighthouse not the fog station), that there was clear sky similar to the illusion mentioned in my last post. So, looking slightly down the pilots can see the ground and it appears to reach a ridge that will be below them should they continue on the same heading and at the same level or rate of climb, (I'm unsure if they initiated a climb but in this scenario it matters not because they
think they are VMC with clear sky on their intended path). Turning their heads towards the left they could see cloud that they believe is shrouding the higher ground.
At this point, looking out of the cockpit they are traversing medium high ground be it in a climb or in level flight with cloud to their left. This would be a totally acceptable visual picture upon checking a map of the area.
Unfortunately the ridge was not a ridge, it was the lower portion of the higher ground they
thought were traversing to the right of while the upper portion, due to the meteorological anomoly, was hidden from them directly on their track and they flew straight into it.
I really find it difficult to believe that my writing has been so unclear that I have to write this in such detail and for the third or fourth time for gentlemen that were never shy about informing me in the past how quick, bright and intelligent they were.
My only remaining resort will be to draw a picture, (which I can do but you will, forever, label yourself as an idiot if you force me to draw it for you).
So, would anyone who has stated that there is no doubt whatsoever that the finding of Gross Negligence like to address the probability of the scenario outlined in this post?