OK so what exactly is the criticism? That the view is accurate but you don't like that view aired until a time you or someone else deems that it is fit to air that view?
How does that work?
Would you take that view if you were talking about historical child sex abuse? You just just hold no opinion? Could you possibly foresee that in that instance you'd develop a culture where nobody would ever speak up?
You said :
A lot of what you say is well founded
So why does it then become unprofessional?
Much of what I've posted about this accident has had nothing to do with the pilot. Yes I suggested he was low, I suggested that the figure was a 1/4 clover and later that it looked scruffy - to mean that as one could see, it wouldn't be as one would fly it for aeros in a piston plane (which btw is the category of aircraft the pilot in question is well practiced in, although as we know there has been good colour on a pilot with experience on this type of aircraft - which in itself provides potential explanation in itself). But we can't debate any of that because you don't see that it is relevant yet.
But then the criticism has been to the CAA - does APG63 still believe they avoid criticism? - for a variety of reasons where I questioned resource and communication and that of the AAIB - its publication of the SB is cynically timed vis the ending of the CAA fees consultation and what part of this latest SB's content required 7 months to research? 7 months, even at a 1950's 40hour week is over 1200hrs of work per person - that is a lot of time.
I mean does the AAIB have 1 person per case? 1 person for 10 cases. 100?? I don't know, but I do know in the interim period the AAIB and CAA have being hiring...
Yet its all set against a backdrop where the CAA's P&L for 2014 was +£14m post tax and £5.5m in 2015. Yet now the CAA are scrabbling for £250k for 4 guys to stick fingers in the leaking dam?!
So yeah I think a great deal was as plain as the nose on your face.