Tuc
Play the ball, not the player (moderator).
The voluminous responses that the airworthiness crowd post whenever a nav issue is brought up is what I object to as they make it harder for the new reader to follow this aspect.
I fully understand the need to have had a thorough look at airworthiness but not to the exception of anything else.
There is much clear evidence for a planned approach to a point on the Mull, the whole scenario I have presented being consistent with all that is known about the flight and it would have only taken a single factor to have been inconsistent with this scenario for it to fall down in part or in the whole - yet the only blocks presented by other posters so far I believe have been demonstrably incorrect - thus I believe at the very least that the nav aspect merits thorough investigation.
On the other hand, the main areas of concern in airworthiness not only did not manifest themselves but the data preserved by the impact contradict any such control problems - yet you all dedicate yourselves to this cause which is surely secondary to the actual cause of the crash.
You compliment certain posters while I am amused that no one else on this thread corrects some of their basic errors (in some cases stupid) - perhaps they are not developing the understanding and doing a good job keeping everything confused, eh?
Play the ball, not the player (moderator).