Sorry to have re-hash old ground guys, but there are still aspect of this case that confuse me. I have little doubt that the AM's verdict was harsh and not the one most people would agree with, but there are still aspects of the evidence and it's reading, that leave me a little uneasy, so help me out here.
If all circumstances were the same:
A: Had there been an FDR, (NO CVR) showing the aircraft to be in perfect working order prior to impact; would this have been evidence enough, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time, to find the pilots grossly negligent?
B: In the absence of an FDR or CVR, is it unjust and/or unsustainable, given similar circumstances, to find any pilot negligent, or grossly negligent, by RAF BOI criteria in force at the time?
C: A ruling of Gross Negligence could only apply to the PROVEN conduct of the pilots, in the circumstances immediately prior to the accident. Not to any aspect of flight planning and/or airmanship decisions en-route?