Olive
Some points
1. Having pax aboard does not alter one's intent to keep yourself, your ac and your crew safe - carrying pax should have no bearing on the on the conduct of a flight - perhaps if it was too bumpy then they might have slowed a little for comfort. But with no CVR/ADR we can't tell the quality of the ride.
2. The ac was serviceable (a line engineering responsiblity) but NOT airworthy (a design and post-design engineering responsibility), as defined by JSP 553.
3. A medium level IMC transit (prob min FL 70 cruise) was not an option for ZD576 - the 4 deg C anti-icing limitation would have prevented this and the reported crews' distrust in the ac's overall nav performance (as highlighted by the inadequate 'interim' RTS).
4. The crew showed good airmanship and common-sense by asking for a Mk1 to remain in theatre - but 1 Gp refused - thereby pre-disposing this accident. Why was this hole in the cheese not addressed by the BOI?
5. Also, why did the BOI not ask if other AT options had been investigated - eg a Herc from LYE - a station with 2 crews always on 6 hour standby and even one crew at 2 hour readiness? Or was there a 1 Gp/NI SH intent to prove to the army that Crab Air had some capability?
All supposition, of course but...............!
flipster