bast0n:
The moot point is "what happened between these two events" - with no evidence to the contrary
Sorry, bast0n, not quite with you there. To the contrary of what? To the finding? Well, if so that's the whole point! It was arrived at in that very manner, with no evidence (to the contrary of loss of control for example). The whole RAF BoI review system seems to rely on the basis that SO's are infallible because they are...SO's. Once they have made such a ruling it must not be overturned because of "Command Integrity". I'm sorry, but you cannot run Accident Investigation on that basis. This aircraft crashed for a reason. Whatever that reason was, one thing is clear to me, that reason has yet to be properly discovered by the RAF. Neither the BoI nor the RO's did so. One senior officer backed up by his seniors, coming up with a reason on the basis of "modelling", disregarding some evidence, constructing cloud extent, using the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence doesn't come close to the standards required.
Fitter2 draws our attention to the standards of Flight Safety taken almost for granted in civil aviation when you buy a ticket to fly. Would you have such confidence if the Chief Pilot of BA was the final arbiter of why his 777 landed with a crump in the LHR undershoot? Would its unique problems of icing in the engine fuel delivery system have been discovered, as it was by the AAIB? Far more likely that yet two more pilots would have taken the rap. This finding is unacceptable. This system is unacceptable. Both must be changed.