Reason Number 8
JP,
You missed reason number 8 off the list - not good as it is the one that you need to use to find aircrew negligence. It reads:
Having meticulously planned a low-level VFR transit (not least to avoid the icing limitations on the airframe) which took full account of the expected weather conditions, and having changed waypoints whilst over the sea (when MOD has confirmed this would normally pressage an immediate course change) an experienced SF crew ignored all their flight planning and training and selected "an inappropriate rate of climb to overfly the Mull" leading to the accident.
As greater legal brains than you and I have pointed out this reason is not based on facts - it is as full of speculation leading to hypotheses as some of reasons 1-7, but you are, clearly, entitled to have this opinion. What the "system" is not entitled to do under RAF rules of the time, or indeed civil law, let alone the ethical standard of justice one might expect to apply to the RAF, is to find Gross Negligence based on this speculation!
A Happy New Year to all.
JB