WK - thank you for clearing the confusion over the waypoints. Your 2 'statements of what WPT A 'WERE' had an air of authority about them but differed in format - why the change in a supposedly authoritative statement? Do I therefore, assume at least one of them is not taken from official findings? Which one? I still await my requested link to the detailed report to save my trawling this thread. SO, yes, I can see the supposed LDZ to which you refer.
So, you maintain that you, like CAZ, assume that they homed (at high speed) to this 'beacon' in IMC in that terrain? That, in my opinion, is not 'gross negligence' but suicidal - mind you I am not familiar with SF/SH techniques, hence my question to TR. It seems very odd that they should 'dump' WPT A when, as you say, "it was still ahead and useful when they dumped it – waypoint B was of no use to them where they dumped it". I can see no logical explanation for this than the fact that they knew where they were at WPT change and were going to fly around the coast visually, but that something interfered with the plan. To assume otherwise requires a huge leap of fantasy from both the BoI and you two. I cannot imagine any pilot of at least average ability flying (rapidly) towards rising ground IMC below SA, homing beacon or not. Why do you assume this is what they did? Is YOUR assumption 'beyond reasonable doubt?
Is there any official evidence as to the planned route? I assume I can see the 'intent' - which is how I would have flown it, but what from the 'planner' involved? I think I recall seeing the G Glen planned? I would assume this would be a 'bread and butter' route for a NI crew.
I also meant to ask before but forgot - what is the 'prac nav' you mentioned?
TR, since you are 'passing through', any comments on both this LDZ on the Mull and the IMC approach technique assumed?