Take off with snow on wing

[Crabman]

Frankly, I find AirRabit's analysis and comments very persuasive. I appreciate them very much.

Question: Given that most accidents involve a chain of causal elements ("but for ..." the accident wouldn't have happened), why elevate one (or more) to be the "probable cause" and relegate the rest to "contributing to"?

I know the NTSB may be charged by statute to do this, but does it really make sense? I believe that other jurisdictions (Canada?) just identify the causal elements and don't attempt to elevate any to being "THE Cause"?

Last point. It is called the "probable cause", not the "proven cause". So why the vitriol when someone posts a dissenting opinion?