Rules and procedures at the time
Would it be fair/reasonable to question the 'rules and procedures at the time', devised, audited, checked and utilised by the same organisation? It really is rather incestuous and something akin to the current MPs expenses farrago where the standard MP defence is "in accordance with the rules", quietly forgetting that these rules were approved by the same.
Maybe a better analogy is the execution of deserters during the First World War; those were the rules the military devised and implemented. I believe the government finally saw sense after 80 years or so.
I'm struggling to understand how the MOD could publicly reach a verdict that amounts to manslaughter on the basis of a flawed process. I wonder why the MOD changed their procedures so soon after the Mull crash?