bastOn
Those words in parenthesis above are not achievable or realistic. You know this.
Have you ever wondered
why the bar is set so very high in circumstances in which those accused of such negligence are utterly unable to defend themselves????
Let me speculate: I believe whoever designed this extremely PRECISE form of words (I believe he may be known to the campaign) did so in the very highest traditions of the Royal Air Force, and also in accordance with the concept of natural justice. These two individuals are totally unable to defend themselves.
Not even by a posthumous record of their voice or actions! The evidence against them should be utterly, and totally beyond question. That, it absolutely is not!
One could almost believe the words anticipated a situation exactly like this???
But then the implication in your post is that the standard of proof required
by the regulations was inconvenient, and so could be ignored. Presumably the same attitude adopted by the reviewing officers??
Indeed since this BOI produced it's result, I believe 'the rules' have been changed, and it would not now be possible to find these two individuals guilty of negligence in the relevant circumstances. Sign of a guilty conscience perhaps??
At least they achieved something for those yet to pass.