Am I missing something here? The facts in the AAIB report indicate perfectly clearly that the cause of the accident is unknown. Given that that conclusion is the result of a thorough investigation by experts, what evidence exists to support the claim that
...Mr Smith failed to consult charts of the terrain of his intended route, failed to plot a route which avoided obstacles, had not planned the flight properly, and didn’t take account of the mountain.
...failing to ensure the flight could be safely completed, failing to update the flight navigation system and failing to appreciate that continuing on the same course, at the same altitude and speed, would inevitably result in a collision with the mountain.
"...
didn’t take account of the mountain"?! How on earth did this ever get to court
I'd be interested in FlyingLawyer's views..