Sadly, for an aviation forum where one might expect a degree of knowledge of the subject under discussion, there are the usual unfounded assumptions and accusations going on here.
The ones that stand out are:
Originally Posted by HOMSAP (post #55)
This pilot had a track record of violating regulations in respect of Lancing College
Please provide evidence of your accusation.
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachabicz (post #59)
The pilot porked it
No where in the evidence in this or previous reports is there evidence to support your libel. In fact, the body of the report contains a number of statements that the reason he continued the manoeuvre could not be determined although possible explanations were given including obscuration of the digit counters by the altimeter needle and glare, etc. You have no basis for your claim.
Originally Posted by Homsap (post #23)
Full power is not applied
The engine was not producing full power, the report is clear that it could not be determined what the pilot had selected with the throttle and that previously this mark of Avon engine had produced less than maximum power for reasons that were never determined.
Originally Posted by Sharksandwich (post #82)
The pilot made a mistake
See my earlier comments. What mistake do you think he made?
Originally Posted by JEM60 (post #81)
If I made a split second bad decision
What was the bad decision? With the amount of doubt cast on various unserviceabilities and obscuration of the Altitude counter, there is every possibility that it was a good decision based on bad information.
Originally Posted by HOMSAP (post #69)
The display pilot did screw up
Nowhere in the report, nor in previous reports has this ever been stated. The report is careful to list a number of different mitigations, which you have clearly ignored or not read.
Originally Posted by Sillert (post #79)
The accident happened because the pilot made a mistake
See my previous remark. You have no grounds to draw that conclusion.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent (post #41)
confused and thought he was in a JP
No evidence for that assumption whatsoever.
Originally Posted by ROBSAUSTINHEALY (post #43)
So the primary cause of this dreadful, and avoidable, accident was pilot error
Where does the report say that? The report clearly never states that. The report clearly states why that conclusion cannot be drawn.
Originally Posted by SASKATOON9999 (post #51)
It appears severe negligence has been proven
Please show me where there is stated evidence in the report to support that conclusion.
Originally Posted by Sidestickbob
This is a simple case of gross negligence
In the same way that the Mull of Kintyre accident ended up with the same verdict made by someone equally blind to the burden of proof as you clearly are.