Did you also notice how Hammond continually tries to emphasise it is the decision of the Commander on the ground? In the same way his predecessors always wanted to concentrate on the final act when it came to determining liability for aircraft accidents.
Accidents such as these never have a single cause. In this case, as with Chinook, Sea King, Nimrod and the rest, there were a number of preconditions, all known to senior staffs and ignored. Hammond's response yesterday does nothing to address those preconditions, or even the concept of their existence, so no Commander on the ground can be held responsible for preventing recurrence.
It is about time Hammond and those who advise him had a career brief on their brief careers.