Any effective investigation is obliged to consider ALL factors.
Let’s have another look at the paragraph that seems to be causing all the fuss:
The PIC’s exposure to a significant period of single-pilot operations during the year prior to the incident had the potential to have adversely affected his ability to operate optimally in a multi-crew, high performance aircraft. However, it was not possible to establish if that recent non-airline experience influenced the pilot’s actions on the day.
Note the words “had the potential”, and in particular the last sentence. In my opinion some here are drawing a fairly long bow if they consider that the above paragraph constitutes rubbishing single pilot IFR experience. Either that or some pretty thin skins. No further mention of the PIC’s extra-company flying is made anywhere in the report.
Now to the findings. NO MENTION is made of the PIC’s single-pilot operations in the findings. Had the paragraph quoted above been included as part of the findings, I would then consider that those who find this report so offensive perhaps had a case. In the meantime I reckon a Bex and lie down might be in order for a few here.