I can't imagine either the operator or regulator were keen to go to court with a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, being forced to testify and produce documentation, and with the court deciding what evidence was relevant and admissible.
This 2nd report seems comprehensive and fair. The pilot made his share of mistakes, sure. But there were many latent risks that were the responsibility of the operator and regulator.
Directly interested parties will always want a bit more from any independent review. That is human nature. Perhaps this disappointment (after 8 years of feeling he has been unfairly scapegoated) is the reason for the pilots recent "spray" in the media. I don't think many would agree with some of his recent comments. It is not clear that any other pilot would have got into the final desperate situation he faced, And full fuel would have permitted a diversion (or a long hold while waiting for weather to clear).
However I suspect most independent people will conclude this report is fundamentally fair, and the pilot will have to come to terms with significant criticism of his actions that night, and try and move on. Chester Nimitz (US Navy admiral) who played a large part in winning the Pacific war and for whom an entire class of aircraft carriers is named in his honour started his navy career running a ship aground and being court-martialled. He learned and moved on.
It is very concerning that the ATSB has made clear that CASA has made little progress getting its house in order.
And, I am curious about the reluctance to get the CVR when ATSB must have always known it contained 2 hours (and not 30 minutes) if information. How could that 2 hours ever have been irrelevant? Even the last 30 minutes provided valuable insights into what can happen under great stress in a very rare situation.