PD RTF-report.
so you have a wealth of flying experience. does it make you a legal expert?
the crux of this issue is the satisfaction of the standard of proof required by the RAF of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". there is massive doubt as to the cause of the accident. further evidence adduced before the HofL select committee corroborated this.
if you are truly interested in obtaining sufficient information so that you may formulate a valid opinion, please refer to a Tort textbook to acquaint yourself with the requirements of proving negligence, especially gross negligence.
i won't bore you with the details, but please bear in mind the HofL select committee consisted of the finest legal and technical brains in the country.
your analogy is strikingly similar to that proposed by day during his oral evidence.hmmmmm.
and by the way, although i personally think your opinion lacks credibility, you wouldn't do yourself any harm by checking your spooling every now and then.