None of us are saying it isn't pilot error, but we are saying he isn't here to defend himself. That means you have to be respectful, my last little rant tried to cover that. People saying 'in the absence of major mechanical failure it must be the pilot' are disrespectful. The mull of McIntyre accident and Hillsborough disaster show the folly of assumption. Also, newspapers aviation sources are often pprune, they don't care about facts. If a professional pilot says something outrageous, they print it as aviation sources.
Not one of you knows what happened, not one. The people who do know certainly won't post here. I agree on freedom to speculate, I do! But I imagine the paper talk comes from here, consider the consequences of blaming Dave.
Consider how statements are written, 95 litres on board.... if that was in the main tank it was unusable. An engine capable of supplying drive doesn't mean it was connected to the drive train. Blades not turning at impact may have been turning just before impact. What were the positions of the engine controls? If they were normal, what stopped the engines? We're they stopped? Eye witness reports are often bullshot, one told a news station a piston might have gone in the engine!. So many of you have not considered the wording of the statement issued. ANY OF YOU could be correct, good luck