Tourist
To say that the crash was airworthiness related is totally misguided at best and dishonest at worst.
It was the BoI that stated it was airworthiness related, quoting some of the regulations that were not met. Have you written to the BoI President (Cdre Hawkins) telling him he is misguided and dishonest? Didn't think so.
I'm the first to admit I know very little about how the RN operate that aircraft but I've read the BoI and RNFAISC reports. You have said in the past that both aircraft had serviceable and operating radar and that both aircraft were serviceable. The reports say otherwise and that the effect was to render the HISL their last line of defence, and it was switched off. Or the forward one was, and the aft was dim and obscured.
There are other things I don't entirely understand but seem to have been withheld from the BoI and RNFAISC. At least 4 LRUs in the avionics system that were the wrong type, directly related to the loss of situational awareness the BoI concluded was a likely cause. The only explanation for one of the faults was another LRU was missing entirely. Lots of seemingly minor holes in slices of cheese but put together didn't do the crews any favours.
I'm told (this is a rumour site after all) that all of the above would have been avoided had MoD not got shot of its corporate knowledge at a vital time. I don't like long posts so I'll stop there, at a point Engines, Tuc, Chug etc reached long ago. All I'll say is if you disagree with the BoI then argue with them, not people who quote the reports.