Apologies if this has been mentioned before (it's a very long thread), the weather at the southern end of the great glen down as far as the mull in the hours after the accident was such that you went from flying along in acceptable vis to finding yourself IMC at 100ft without warning. Real gold fish bowl, flat grey sea, poor light, drizzle turning into sea/coastal fog patches. As mentioned the changes were without warning, if those conditions existed around the mull at the time of the accident, and the evidence seems to suggest that, it would be the easiest thing in the world not to have visual with the coast until very late in the day.
There was also a report either immediately before or very shortly after of a Chinook on a low level navex finding a discrepency of 2nm between the position given by its GPS driven nav kit and its actual position over the ground. Add this to all the other known FACTS and I just cannot see how there can be the "no doubt whatsoever" about the cause which would allow a finding of gross negligence by the 2 air officers ( the board led by a highly experienced president was not convinced).
The Scottich Fatal Accident Inquiry verdict, unlike a coroners court I think, was legally valid and conducted by someone trained in the workings of judicial process. The Sheriff conducting it interestingly came to a different conclusion to the 2 air officers, whose opinion is more legally valid?