The accident was caused by something that happened on the runway, not after leaving it.
Fundamentally, no. I'm no fan of Jim Reason's, or his cheesy theory, but he's absolutely right to identify latent and active causes. Leaving aside your schoolboy error of assuming that the accident was
'caused by something'
(one thing), and, whilst giving due respect to your claimed expertise in this field (on BOIs, perhaps?), the causal factors, direct and indirect, active and latent, call them what you will, will be complex. Often their complexity is in direct proportion to the expertise and political freedom of the investigative team, especially where any critique of fundamental design matters is involved.
Any witness marks will only show the position of various controls at impact and not where they were before touchdown and during the landing roll - agreed?
No, not agreed. I presume you're restricting your remarks to witness marks relating to flight control positions in the flight deck or on the airframe. I'm not. There are others, notably on the runway (skid marks and/or areas 'cleaned' by steam from aquaplaning or burst tyres, and the like). These will (with luck) be fairly easy to interpret - road accident investigators do this day in, day out.
Regarding the 'mod' bit
Yes, regarding this, as I've said before (in public and private) PPRuNE is very stiffly moderated - censored is not too strong a word. The moderators' words here carry a certain weight, especially to the non-cognoscenti (that is, the vast majority of readers and posters). Therefore, for non-experts to be posting 'expert' opinion is even less acceptable than it would be otherwise.
I'll PM you about some of your other remarks.
