Caz- this has now become farcical. You obviously have NO idea about the conduct of a low level nav by an operational crew and firmly believe that the crew were
intent on pressing on in IMC below SA to reach a 'waypoint'. There is no hope for you.
I'm not saying they did not DELIBERATELY continue in a straight line to the point of impact - no-one knows, do they? Hence the 'doubt'. However, all who understand the competence of the crew, the nature of the task and ANY idea of how these things are flown would consider that to be implausible. At least we have a concensus that they were in all probability VMC at waypoint change (and therefore not 'grossly negligent' at that point) which should, I feel, be enough to require a fresh look at the finding.
PLEASE accept also that
no-one here either thinks or claims that the weather conditions at the crash site were 'VMC' - that point is totally irrelevant so you can stop quoting SLK (and JLK). I DO hope you understand that - unless of course you have a source for the claim of 'VMC' at the site? The BoI maybe? The HoL enquiry? The Fatal Accident Enquiry? I've missed it.
Your point about mis-understood Waypoints is also irrelevant for a
VMC navex.
My advice is to stick with the 'duty times and missed breakfast'? You'll probably do better with those.
