Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequences. It is a mistake to conclude that an undesirable circumstance is in any way the root cause of the accident. You have to separate out the incidental and resist letting your emotions slant your conclusion on the hard reason for the crash. Why the AAIB is better at this than most of us. As has been said earlier, the crash was not because the pilot only had a PPL. Lots of incompetent pilots with CPL, lots of ultra competent with PPL. Did not happen because it was single-engine, there has been no suggestion or evidence that the engine failed. Did not happen because the aircraft was not flown on an AOC - two B200's crashed here in the same week flown two crew on an AOC. Did not happen because it turned into a popsicle and fell out of the sky from forecast icing. We fly the same aircraft all winter in forecast light icing. Did not happen because it was night instead of day. Now any of those things may have influenced the precipitating incident, or the consequences afterward but at this point we just don't know. As experienced pilots or AOC managers we look at sum of probabilities, and learn to back off when the odds start to stack against us - doesn't mean that anyone that chooses to proceed is automatically doomed. And back to logic of appropriateness and now the demand for greater regulatory enforcement. Same flawed argument that if we can avoid one of the incidental circumstances we can prevent the crash next time. Time travel fantasy.