Chinook
Tandemrotor. Many thanks, your contribution was indeed very helpful - but mainly in showing where some of the continuing confusion may lie.
As to your Fact 1. The yachtsman changed his story at least twice as I recall, and his notion of the speed of the aircraft was shown to be well off-side.
Fact 2. The precise speed is surely irrelevant; the average speed over the leg tells us that they were not dawdling along.
Fact 3. Never mind that the yachtsman could see part of the coast and the base of the hillside; there were ten witnesses up near the lighthouse, ie at the height the aircraft would have to fly in order to miss the hills, who told us just how bad the local conditions were, as well as the lighthouse keepers remark that he was in fog.
You say that a case cannot be built around the other fa ts that I mentioned : ie the lighthouse at about 300 ft; the point of impact at about 500 ft, the top of the hills at that point at around 800 ft and the distance betwen he waypoit and the point of impact ie around 500 meters. I will say it just once more; THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were not facing a 300 ft hill on their intended track, they were instead facing an 800 ft hill over 500 yards to the right of their intended track and they were flying blind or as near to blind as makes no difference.
Will you please say what makes that so difficult to accept?
John Purdey