Brian, thank you. For a while I was worried that this thread would degenerate into the usual pprune slanging match. I wholeheartedly agree with your line; the MOD did not meet it's own standards for burden of proof. Forgetting this strategic issue and getting involved in trivia such as breakfasts, who planned what, STANS coordinates (guilty as charged
), black ops, FADEC runaways etc completely misses the point. Being benevolent, almost every single scenario offered in this forum is plausible, some being quite probable. However, not one of them can be presented with 'absolutely no doubt' which, conveniently, takes us back to the burden of proof conundrum.
Personally, I would be content if the MOD could prove gross negligence - it would give closure. But until the MOD recognise that they failed in attaining their own, clearly defined, burden of proof criteria (it is not for the pilots to prove their innocence) the argument will continue.
JP, Caz, Walter - I respect your views and admire your tenacity. Please don't rise to the bait as this thread has, until now, brought the best out of this forum.