cgb, you are quite right, we do not know why 29 people died on the Mull, principally because it was investigated by a compromised BoI (ask the CAS!) which in any case was overruled by the operator (thank God the civvies can't do that). The point I was making to Tourist is that the aircraft was Grossly Unairworthy and 29 people died in it. Its unairworthiness was not even considered a possibility as a cause by the BoI, giving us some clue as to the degree of that compromise.
I have already raised my concern and bewilderment that those fighting the Wratten and Day infamous finding discounted airworthiness also. Are the Armed Services now given a lecture following attestation about the evils of airworthy aircraft? Some of the hostility raised by those challenging airworthiness beggars belief. It is cheaper simply to retain fully qualified airworthiness engineers and have them implement the Regulations than have the present system whereby they have been got rid of and their places taken by the unqualified, inexperienced, obedient, and pliant. Simply finding fault in the crew in the inevitable subsequent fatal accidents fools fewer and fewer. Of course you have a right to your beliefs, but the RAF has a right to airworthy aircraft. If it went to war now in a hostile air environment it would be 1939 all over again IMHO.