BV. Couldn't have said it better. I'd add that there is an obligation to address issues and factors that, while they may not have contributed directly to a particular accident, were nevertheless identified as failings (and in this case violations) and may cause or contribute to recurrence.
That obligation is seldom met. In this case, as I said, those responsible were permitted to judge their own case; and guess what......
Biscuit is correct when saying:
"The obvious snag with that argument is that no-one takes off deliberately intending to have an accident, yet accidents happen. Most of them due to our human errors and mis-perceptions."
The pilot was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The prosecution therefore had to prove a degree of intent to disregard or be indifferent to obvious risks. Very difficult I suggest. But it is quite easy to demonstrate against others, if for example they have been warned as to the effect of their illegal actions, and they persist.
As for aircraft serviceability - it wasn't, on many counts. The reason I mentioned the buggered fuel pump was that there were two distinct 'atypical power reductions' during the final manouevre, and it could not be demonstrated who or what caused these. Peel back one layer (the incorrect servicing instructions) and you come to the invalid permit to fly, which says the RAF is responsible for maintaining these.