He claimed the King Air is an aircraft designed to remain airborne even after the engines have failed. I'd like to see that.
I don't like GT either but I think you are playing with semantics there VH-CU. You and I both know what he meant.
Google "Occam's Razor". It is a simple principle that the simplest, most likely explanation for anything is usually correct. I think the posts here have been very imaginative in dreaming up complex coincidences that may have contributed to the accident.
Who knows, one of these amazing confluences of events may in fact prove to be correct. However....
Like others watching that video I am seeing an aircraft yawing around to the left. There is a simple explanation available for that.
I find the hysterical reaction to legitimate questions (How dare you question the skills of the pilot?!? He was my mate and is without fault!) quite worrying on a board of supposedly professional technical equipment operators. If you aren't looking at this incident, and every other incident, and questioning how YOU could fall into that trap then you should be.
After the Airtex Mojave a number of pilots who knew the accident pilot sought to blame anyone but the accident pilot, refusing to examine his role in the events.
After Norfolk Island the pilot was elevated to saint-like status by some, despite actions and decisions that contributed to the accident.
I love Human Factors training and I have participated in and delivered a great deal of it - HOWEVER human factors is, like Stall recovery practice, an exercise in highlighting the danger and learning to identify the symptoms to TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. Human Factors does not provide you with a bag of excuses for poor performance or f*ckups.
Stop being a bunch of emotionally reactive schoolgirls and act like professional, technical, analytical pilots.