I have read the report and find that it is balanced and fair.
To my reading, it explores all relevant issues in the case investigated and based on the available evidence makes a finding of the most probable cause and the issues both relevant to that probable cause and other possible causes.
Simple things like not having the required placard with the required information for the passenger may seem petty or irrelevant to some but that attitude that certain legal requirements are petty or irrelevant or can be ignored is exactly what the AAIB see as the start of a slippery slope that needs to be stopped.
One can go to certain airfields in the UK and out of a sample of microlights will find a proportion have undocumented and uncertified modifications. Many would be minor and not of any serious consequence. However, the fact that they exist shows what the AAIB quite rightly in my opinion describes as a minority of operators who choose to ignore or are unaware of legal requirements.
A microlight operator I know of when faced with an airworthiness problem decided that under no circumstances would the BMAA be informed because "if the CTO finds out he will ground all the aircraft and how will we make money then".
That is a quote from a very experienced microlight pilot about a common microlight type. Having experienced that attitude to flight safety, not only would I agree with the AAIB comments but would say that they are only skimming the top.
Regards,
DFC