Now that the temperature between TR and Chug has cooled a little, some ponts to ponder.
1. We will never know what actually caused the crash. It could have been a number of causes; crew error, technical failures/distractions, illusions or a combination thereof (even WK's theory is not totally impossible- improbable but not impossible). So it is pointless arguing about a definitive final act chaps - pse don't keep going around that buoy.
2. The AAIB did their best with very little surviving evidence (I have also spoken to Tony Cable at length) and my abiding thought from those conversations is that 'no evidence of failure is not evidence of no failure' - a concept seemingly lost on the RAF - and hence back to point 1!
3. Also, dont forget the AAIB only 'assisted' the BoI with the technical report and that the following investigation by the BoI was indeed less than thorough, as suggested by Tuc (for example the BoI chose to place different emphases on certain aspects of AAIB report and ignore others!). The reasons of such an approach by the Board could be traced to the lack of investigative experience of serving officers, the time constraints placed upon them and the process, as well as (possible) undue 'senior' influence (Bill Tench, Chief Inspector AAIB in 1987!!). However, the fact remains that the BoI studiously did not look deeply enough at 'organisational fault' as a contributory factor - even though AP3207 allowed this. And even if the BoI did not know about CHART, there were enough clues - but I suspect they would never have been permitted to go there.
3. However, having read all the lack of airworthiness issues and regulatiolns not complied with, then to my mind, it IS substantiated (with absolutely no doubt whatsoever) that the senior people involved in the abysmally implemented and under-funded airworthiness process were grossly negligent. Ultimately, they severely failed the crew and pax on ZD576 - as well as, inter alia, XV179 & XV230. While no-one can say this negligence was a direct cause, however, I challenge anyone with an open mind to deny the relevence to the crash. If nothing else, it certainly adds to the mountain of doubt surrounding the final flight of ZD576. It will, I hope, help to persuade Lord Philip to rule against the appalling verdict by D&W of crew negligence.
4. But while I am sure that clearing the names of Jon & Rick is the first priority of everyone who has posted here recently, may I also suggest that preventing such an unairworthy and 'positively dangerous' aircraft ever again taking to the skies whilst wearing RAF roundels would be something of which the 29 souls aboard ZD576 would approve? I do - and, therefore, I fully support Chug's and Tuc's suggestion of better implementation of the safety and airworthiness regulations, led by a totally independent and properly-funded oversight authority. That is the bigger picture, I feel.
5. As for any sanction against those incompetent, high-level 'blimps' (airships lacking any means of power or directional control) who oversaw the airworthiness process in the 1980-90s and who have obfuscated ever since - that we should leave to Lord Philip and the SofS. Certainly the blimps
deserve our scorn and to have many sleepless nights. Fit to lead? I'm not so sure.