Tandem rotor, if for one moment you would clear the paranoia that creates your prejudice you would have at least read my posts correctly. Just why do you think your views are the only ones that are valid! The only Unserviceability found by the investigation was a possible malfunction of the RADALT. I am sure you know that the RADALT simply records the height of the cliff at impact.
RADAR - read again. I know there was no WX radar that is my point.
BLAME - read again. My posts are clear.
Flying Lawyer - I may be mistaken but the lighthouse staff reported the lighthouse in fog??? The forecast mentioned possible DVS at the mainland coast.
Both - the final flight path, cyclic flare, turning left, 30 degrees nose up could be interpreted as a late acquisition of the surface but of course we will never know.
There are no definitive answers to this accident but we can reasonably speculate based on the facts as they are available. There is no "Shame" in doing this.
The Burden of Proof is there to protect the innocent from the slightest chance that there is another explanation. Its process does not conclude AT ALL, the most probable cause. TANDEMROTOR your anger towards me suggests you think because the Burden of Proof could not be met for negligence it automatically cancels any possibility of CFIT. This is simply not the case!! It just means there is insuuficient evidence to support negligence. In any other aviation operation this should open up the debate for a more progressive, productive discussion. However, the Mull, shrouded in implied controversy, seems to hold an immunity from this supported by near hysterical ranting posts like yours.
Again I apologise if the crew were your friends but this is aviation and if we do it long enough and hard enough we will lose friends. Sometimes the circumstances beggar belief and sometimes luck runs out. However getting emotional every 5 minutes because someone expresses an opinion, or worse ACCIDENTLY posts an inaccuracy, means you either have PTSD or you are manipulating posters emotionally to support your own views.
TANDEM - I have no doubt you will react with another emotional tiraid for something I have said in this post. But caution, I am fairly certain that apart from my summary of the overall flight path in post 431 I have recognised the emotion connected with this events and everything thereafter is information contained in the reports.
From the overall perspective of the very many CFITs into land and water the Mull accident is relatively unremarkable save for the appalling loss of life. Ultimately there may be a very different prime cause but as such we can learn nothing. However, if we consider the most probable cause as CFIT we can learn a great many lessons. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we are free to hypothesise for this purpose just as you do TANDEM when accident threads you post on are not so close to home.