1. We really don't need another parallel thread. Please, moderators, merge these.
2. Dave, Can't be bothered won't do. Either you care to find out, or you don't. Your use of the term 'pilot error' is illuminating, and is a common error made by the media. As Brian says pilot error is one thing and Gross Negligence quite another. In order to find the pilots guilty of Gross Negligence the BoI had to be able to prove it BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER. They couldn't and didn't. Wratten and Day, for reasons known only to themselves 'sexed up' (to use the modern vernacular) the report to find gross negligence where none could be found to the degree of proof required.
3. As Brian says, we don't discount error or negligence as possible causes. We simply require that a finding requiring such exacting standards of proof should either meet that requirement or be reversed. There is no 'counter argument' to postulate. We will never know what happened.
4. Just a thought. That comedian Bliar used the term 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever' recently regarding Iraqi WMD. No wonder his henchmen like BuffHoon can't grasp the concept either.