Jp:
If you read my last posting again, you will see that what I said was 'unable to understand how it can be seen as other than....' in other words, unable to understand how anyone can see/judge it as, say, technical failure, rather than a question of airmanship.
A view you are perfectly entitled to hold.
However, what is it that prevents you from seeing that your assumptions do not equate to proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that they are correct?
You can believe what you want, but the finding of gross negligence against these pilots can never be upheld in accordance with the RAF's own rules on that alone. EVIDENCE man.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.