JP - I fully agree that 'exposure' of that part of my flying career is not relevant to this.
What I have been trying to correct, however, based on a fair bit of operational and other low-level flying, is that, far removed from your 'fair-weather only' low-level mantra, both the route, the weather and the crew were in all probability suitable for the task with which they were tasked and they accepted which you seem to refute. Do YOU accept this or do you maintain that they should have abandoned the route because there was (the usual) cloud on the Mull? A simple question I would like confirmed one way or the other please.
Indeed, we DO, as Brian says, very much have an 'open mind' on all of this and we do not know with certainty why they flew on the track they did. Personally I would also be particularly interested in your answers to Brian's questions 1,3,4,5,6 and 7. I would add to 6) 'the other crew-members too'. (I think we can assume coastal stratus/fog for 2). I would indeed like to hear your positive assertion (to support the ROs) that an acknowledged competent multi-crew deliberately and willfully steered the machine from waypoint change towards cloud-covered rising ground (with predictable consequences) rather than follow the logical coastal route. The fact that they did not take the logical action of turning away to stay off the coast is to us totally inexplicable. Perhaps you can offer a reason?