I think this accident demonstrates just how detrimental gross sideslip can be, lucille. Take a look at figure 20 on page 25 of the report. Positions 5 and 6 show the aircraft appears to be going almost sideways. You will have to zoom in on the image.
This analysis is a smoke & mirrors crock of s@#t. If the ATSB had halfway done a proper job they would have:
a) flown the accident profile in the SIM (which they didn't because they recorded airspeeds in excess of 140 kt and the accident aircraft never got above about 112 kt.
b) done a real flight in a B200 and at a safe altitude tried winding on LH rudder trim
The pixel analysis has large potential error. The report tables the margin for errors, which I think are understated because I think they have only considered an error of +/- 1 pixel rather than cumulating the potential 1 pixel arror of all the points they used for angle calculation. But the side slip performance speculation uses only the worst case of the estimated side slip angles.
If you do your own calculation of the fuselage angle as it hit the DFO building (based on the angle the fuselage centreline makes with the propellor cuts) it doesnt correlate with the report, I get less side slip angle than the report. Which once again challenges the fundamental thesis of the report. The propeller cuts change angle significantly after the 4th cut (one propeller revolution or about 0.03 seconds after first contact) where I presume the aircaft started to yaw due to contact with the building. I'm suspicious that the ATSB used an average of the propellor cut angles rather than using the best defined of the first 4.
Its worth noting that in one of the US B200 accident reports that the pilot did maintain directional control despite full LH rudder trim. Which once again brings into question the fundamental premise of the report and supports the suggestion that directional control could have been maintained if the only problem was incorrectly set trim.