The question of the weather at the time, Mk2 FADEC issues etc should be part of a wider debate/discussion outside one fundamental point – the ‘legality’ of the findings by Day/Wratten within the constraints and scope of a BOI of the day.
Day found Tapper/Cook to be grossly negligent at a point in time along the aircraft’s track prior to its impact. Was this a subjective assessment, or did he have the empirical evidence to support his findings? My interest is in the ‘legal advice’ Day sought prior to him passing the report to Wratten (who, in the main, concurred with Day’s findings).
What was that advice? It is that received advice that needs to be closely scrutinised by legal experts because it, clearly, had a major influence in drafting the final report to find Tapper/Cook grossly negligent (beyond 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever').
Is the legal advice Day received a matter of record? If it is, could someone please steer me to it?
AA