endplay
Is a breach of VFR and IFR gross negligence and had the crash not happened would such a finding against 2 living pilots have been disputed?
Contrary to some of the above posters, I think you ask a good, and relevant question
I will state some personal opinions that may or may not be relevant to this accident, but might help you with your question:
Is a breach of VFR ... gross negligence
I doubt there is a pilot flying who has not at some point "breached VFR"
Most of the breaches will have been unintentional, and a good % the pilot was never aware of it. VFR in these circumstances requires pilot assessment of Met Vis and Cloud(base). There is no "dial" indicating these values... and over the sea, approaching some visible land, you might deduce the visibility as well above legal, but fail to spot the mist over another portion of land
Is a breach of ... IFR gross negligence
Of course, if you are now not VFR then you are IFR and new rules apply... and it cannot become another case of "gross negligence" when you are unable to correct this instantly (it requires a climb to SA).
I would probably accept
An intentional, and sustained, breach of VFR and IFR, is gross negligence, if the appropriate actions are not carried out
I'm ex-RAF FW (FJ), and from very early days we were taught (and I later taught) the "Low Level Abort". The Low Level Abort is used when the pilot asseses is he no longer "VFR", or is unable to maintain VFR. It involves a rapid climb to/above SA, and it is presumed IFR will be encountered in this process. It will therefore, by definition, include
...a breach of VFR and IFR
until you reach SA. I doubt there is a (ex-)serving FJ pilot who has never carried out a genuine, unforeseen, LL Abort. Were we all "negligent"? Let alone "grossly negligent"
I would therefore say,
...and had the crash not happened would such a finding against 2 living pilots have been disputed?
the answer is yes - the mere fact of having been in breach of VFR and IFR is accepted as a possibility and appropriate actions prescribed.
The key statement you identified
...and at this time they were in breach of both VFR and IFR. For that reason, the pilots were considered by the ROs to have been grossly negligent ...
I disagree with since it misses whether the pilots were aware they were in breach, and to muddy the waters, the extent to which they were in breach of VFR. To be judged "grossly negligent" I believe it would need to be shown they were 100% aware they were not VFR (and for it to be "grossly" probably well below VFR)
AND the appropriate actions were not taken, once this awareness occurred, in a reasonable timescale. Or put another way... IMHO to be grossly negligent it needs to be shown that they
knew they were IFR and failed to take (and were able to take) appropriate actions (whatever the RW equivalent of the LL Abort is).
Just my 2ps worth
NoD