Tandemrotor
Just as back-ground, I followed the case closely when the details first began to appear. I watched a presentation to the House of Lords Committee which explained the case to them as laymen and I have read many of the subsequent technical and legal reports and the threads on this site.
I accept that the verdicts are unsustainable legally and, like most people, am at a loss as to why they have not at least been reviewed.
I accept your point about aircraft serviceability. However, the aircraft had just departed Aldergrove and was surely serviceable then or it would not have been cleared or accepted. Nothing that could have caused the accident was found subsequent to the crash. I remake the point I made in another post that if the aircraft was being operated correctly, what could have occurred after the aircraft had passed the waypoint that caused it to crash of which there was subsequently no evidence and which dual systems could not have coped with.
The lighthouse keeper reported that he was in fog. If I had been flying a passenger flight, as I was many times, I would have been required to be at least five hundred feet above ground-level before crossing the coast and I would have had the option of continuing IFR if I had been unable to maintain that separation which they did not. There has been no suggestion that I have found that the weather was anything approaching that.
As regards the verdict I accept that if there was no proof of neglicence then it must be wrong.
I'm not sure what the very many advantages were that I would have enjoyed. The aircraft was either equipped for its task or it was not. FDR's and CVR's are certainly relevant after the accident but not before. As regards a C of A, after thirty odd years I can't remember what the military equivalent was and I don't mean to be flippant.
I suspect that what separates us is a matter of degree. We are agreed that a verdict of gross negligence or negligence is unacceptable. My point is simply that I have seen or read nothing nor does my experience suggest to me anything that could rule out pilot responsibility which must remain a possibility.
Finally, I decided to contribute to this argument partly to see if my understanding of this tragic case was flawed and where. Some points have been raised by professionals such as yourself but there have been far too many red herrings raised by laymen that have clouded the issue. I do not believe that, painful a conclusion though it may be, a finding of innocent would be an accurate or honest answer.