I'm enjoying reading this thread, which is the epitome of PPRuNe, where conjecture and opinion is interspersed with entrenched views and a smattering of mudslinging...particularly where individuals want to give an alternative view of events to the findings of an SI. I'm sure that previous posters who want to preserve the reputation of the Reds mean well, and I am sure they believe what they say, but the Panel of an SI don't just base their findings on 'a feeling' or cobbled together evidence - they make a judgement using the experience that they have and the reason they were chosen to do the job in the first place.
The Panel also know that the report will be scrutinised by lawyers, next of kin, military stakeholders and eventually the public and media, therefore the findings have enough basis for being included "on the balance of evidence". If the family or the RAFAT QCs had been instructed that findings were baseless, they had every chance at the Inquest to raise them.
I know for a fact that understanding the detailed questioning which results from an SI, nothing would be included if the Panel could not support the findings with evidence. The difference of opinion, I am sure, is the interpretation of that evidence and often the vagaries of regulation or policy.
We are all very proud of the Reds, but there were practices taking place that were not policy compliant, nor were they justifiable. The fact that the recommendations were supported and implemented means the report did its job, after all it is an air safety document attempting to ensure that such tragedies do not happen again.