In short the ATSB made a statement to the effect that Par Avion "encouraged" pilots to depart in marginal weather conditions. This would have peaked the Coroners interest given the lack of evidence provided as it becomes an accusation of possible workplace issues, that is, was the pilot in that location due to being pushed beyond their will by their employer.
Wrong. This is what the report actually stated:
In this case, if the weather was suitable at Cambridge, the operator’s pilots were strongly encouraged to depart to assess the weather in-flight, even if the forecast indicated they might not be able to get through. However, the pilots reported having a different understanding of how far to continue with the direct route through the portals when deteriorating weather conditions were encountered and what the decision points were.
This was evident from the pilot interviews and the ATSB’s analysis of the Spidertracks data for the south-west flights, where approaching the portals, some flights diverted down the valleys and tracked to the coast (including the accident pilot 1 month earlier), while others tracked over Federation Peak.
The evidence comes from pilot interviews none of which are going to be made public. It is also quite clear that it comes under the heading of increasing risk and was not a contributing factor. The purpose of an ATSB report is to investigate an accident so that others may possibly learn from it and avoid doing something similar. The coroner in this case does not seem to understand that.
I'm well aware of what organisational factors are, but it muddies the waters in an 'accident' investigation. Possibly it should have been investigated separately.
Then you don't understand the purpose of an ATSB investigation either. Its all part of the investigation. To suggest that an investigation of organisational issues should be separate from the accident investigation is ridiculous. The ATSB are criticized for taking too long as it is let alone having to produce two reports for the one occurrence.