Jayteeto, I have not, to my knowledge, included the Mull on any CFIT list. I think you might be mistaking me for another poster.
Just so we are clear, we are all entitled to reasonable opinions provided they are supported by our experience and intelligence.
IT IS A reasonable opinion that the Mull was simply a CFIT! Just as it is reasonable to have an opinion that a spurious, 12 second indication of engine failure from the FADEC could have distracted the crew. However, in the absence of clear evidence we are left to our own opinions. My opinion is not based on blame or cause. Simply what can I draw from the event that may help me.
In this directive, planning a route in poor or likely deteriorating WX with a turning waypoint on high ground, rather than over open water, could, if circumstances conspire, cause a greater problem regardless of what else may be happening in the cockpit. In addition, maintaining very high Groundspeed towards rising terrain coasting in, in DVE, is a very poor practice best avoided.
I have read every report on the Mull and my opinions are unchanged as to the most probable cause. In that opinion I conclude that had some money been spent on a WX radar I very much doubt the Mull would have happened as a crystal clear paint of the coast would become a primary navigation aid.
As it is some people's continued pursuit of other causes do not readily support the requirement of manufacturers and operators (RAF) to equip aircraft such that the flight crew have the best information available to them when they need it.
None of the above involves blaming anyone or anything. It is simple a discussion based on most probable cause, and drawing from that, what lessons can or should be learned.
Any finding of crew negligence is hopelessly naive and serves no real purpose other than to close, forever, and accident report.