For example, when an incident report concludes that the pilot failed to follow the manufacturer’s published stick shaker response manoeuvre, the incident report omits the possibility that if the pilot had have followed the published manoeuvre, then it could have resulted in one of the world’s most tragic mid-air collisions.
Right, so he pitched down according to the report, but he failed to roll wings level. Last time I checked there was no holding pattern situated next to Betty, all traffic was holding in a vertical pattern(above and beneath). Maybe if he did roll wings level he would have removed the aircraft from a pattern where multiple aircraft were stacked. His actions in effect jeopardised the aircraft below him as he maintained the pattern laterally, but broke separation vertically.
Your sensationalist remark about avoiding a tragic mid air collision is sadly misguided and your defence of his actions only leads insult to your profession and that of Qantas's image.
I don’t see a lot of learning in this thread.
I have learnt quite a bit from this incident, aviate first, regardless of aircraft or airline. Did Qantas tell you that his actions actually avoided a mid air collision saving hundred of lives, or you make that up?
It seems the ATSB don't agree with that assertion, otherwise failing to comply with a manufacturer's course of action WOULD have been mentioned as a mitigating circumstance.