Whatever was intended, the actual manoeuvre flown was in effect a half barrel roll followed by a half loop. The first half barrel roll was both totally inappropriate (irrespective of aircraft type) and completely unprecedented. The second, tragic 'half loop' was equally inappropriate. In my opinion, the inappropriate manoeuvres, especially combined with the bizzare and inappropriate throttle movements scream cognitive impairement from before the pull-up.
For me there are some obvious similarities to another tragic accident where sadly the pilot died, but fortunately no-one else was injured.
With the benefit of an ADR the Board of Inquiry were able to declare that "Pilot incapacitation ....was a possible cause.."..
A brief excerpt from that report is thought-provoking:
Having read the XX179 report in the past (I had worked with the accident pilot's father), it's interesting to note that the structure of the MAA report findings is very methodical as to whether it deems a particular aspect - such as pilot distraction or disorientation - as "not a factor" or "possible cause", hence generating the "Why". In fact, the methodology used is discussed in the report itself - often using a process of elimination.
By comparison, the Shoreham AAIB report although giving both causal and contributory factors, does not touch on a "Why" and their methodology isn't entirely clear. If such a methodical approach was used by the AAIB - and there is no evidence one way or the other to determine this - I wonder why they weren't more explicit in ruling specific aspects in or out?