Genstabler, you seem to mix 'fact', 'evidence', 'credible' and 'theory' to your benefit. I too made the same mistake in my earlier post, as there are facts (the shackle was over-tightened) and considerations based upon facts presented (culture based upon observation/interview). I defer that findings regarding culture will be less factually based (there will never be any perfect basis for such observations) but they do not detract from the conclusion of A Panel. I emphasise A Panel because another Panel may have come to different conclusions, may have highlighted different cultural observations, and may have placed different emphasis on different findings.
This doesn't mean that they are wrong, it means that the professional opinion of a panel of independent military specialists came to the conclusions published, when presented with the evidence and facts that are annotated in the right hand side column of the report. I'd like to believe that the Panel asked the same questions that we all have asked in earlier posts, and in our own conversations with colleagues, as without the balanced questioning, how can any independent panel come up with a report to make positive change?
Just ask yourself, in the interviews with the pilots, did they ask, "did you do the full time in the simulator that you logged, or did you share it with another pilot?" If there was a reasonable policy answer to that, then there would have been absolutely no reason to include it in the report. This goes for all the other unpalatable 'culture' sections or mentions of self-medication.
Every unit has tough times, and a SI report is not a vehicle to besmirch reputations, it is a means to raise air safety. I, like every thinking individual, do not accept what is presented without questioning its validity and credibility. What I attempt to do is see through the uncomfortable reading and believe that the pilots did not get up in the morning thinking they were going to be unprofessional, and instead that anyone who wants to be the best in the world, should take any offer of positive criticism and grasp the opportunity to have a long look at established cultures to check to see THEIR validity.
These are terrible events, and often they are the catalyst for much soul searching and change. I would be surprised if the team wouldn't want to be beyond such comment in the future, surely they would want to have a culture to be proud of?