The airworthiness argument isn't going to do it.
The subtlety here is that those arguing the airworthiness aspect are not claiming this is what caused the crash.
What we are saying is that the decision to state the aircraft was airworthy, despite expert advice that it was not, is a proven degree of negligence far in excess of that which remains unproven against the pilots. Those responsible are guilty of an act of Commission.
This was compounded by the deliberate decision to misrepresent the facts by withholding vital, safety related information from Users. Those responsible are guilty of an act of Omission.
Unless both acts are assessed, one cannot reach a balanced view. The pilots
may have committed an error. MoD has provided evidence senior staffs made errors (a charitable word) of Commission and Omission. But, given the evidence also shows they were advised of the impact and ploughed on, those errors swiftly became an act gross negligence and failure of Duty of Care. In my opinion.