TANDEMROTOR - firstly the Mull Tragedy is marred by the intimation that the HC-2 was not fit to be released to service, the crew currency may have been inadequate and the Commander forced to fly against his will. Some parallels that others have mentioned blight the Corporate flying world. So if you can keep your composure we have every right to discuss the Mull topic here.
You journalistic rhetoric places great value on facts. However you are wrong about the fire! 80% of the fuselage was damaged by fire but only 20% destroyed.
If you are that familiar with this accident then tell me what possible reasons, other than low cloud, would cause a crew to fly below 500 feet over the sea towards high ground at a Groundspeed of 170 KIAS. witnesses on the Mull reported visibility below 500m. The yachtsman saw the aircraft estimated at 200-400 feet, flying below the cloud base, heading straight for the Mull.
TANS data infers that the crew may have been distracted after the second waypoint selection. The final flight path strongly infers inadvertent IMC.
The exact reasons why the crew flew towards the Mull below the Safety Altitude are unknown but on the few facts available described above the most probable cause, in my opinion no more and no less, is inadvertent IMC leading to CFIT.
Crucially, and this is the point TANDEM you seem incapable of processing, this conclusion does not necessarily mean that the crew were to blame. Equally it does not necessarily mean they were not to blame! There is simply not enough evidence in this regard, to know for certain and thus the required legal Proof cannot be met.
Now instead of being incredibly rude and calling me an "Ignoramus" just what do you have to offer that counters any of the above (which to the best of my recall is accurate in regards to the accident review).
Or alternatively keep bleating for us to move the topic to another thread.
I may well be an "Ignoramus" but like I said at the start, there are none so blind as those that cannot see.
I have drawn my own conclusions based on the evidence in the reports. If you want to modify my opinion you need to explain what is wrong in the reports and my mind is open.
DB