Originally Posted by
airsound
they've conducted a thorough review, using a team of inspectors with expertise in aircraft performance, human factors, fast jet operations and display flying. And they've decided not to reopen their inquiry. But - and I believe this is significant - they will publish a supplement to the final report, with full details of the review they conducted. Could that be a face-saver for them?
You (deliberately?) omitted to mention this part of the statement:
Originally Posted by AAIB
We have also ... consulted subject matter experts on aeromedical aspects.
Which reduces the likelihood of this being a face-saving exercise rather sharply. As indeed does the continuation of display flying under both CAA and RAF auspices, especially in the latter case when you consider the fact that its medical experts did not previously have awareness of CI. The various Duty Holders could hardly have pressed on regardless given the intense scrutiny they would be under, which suggests that an expert review of the evidence might have concluded that CI is either not a 'thing' or does not pose a concern. How many display pilots have lost their medical categories as a precaution against it, especially among the 'older/experienced' community on the civilian circuit? And if it can't be screened for and is distinct from g-effects, what would be the wider implications of one man's defence for the whole aviation sector?
I also remain deeply uncomfortable with the notion that AH was too good/experienced/sensible/respected (etc) to have made the mistakes he did. That is the kind of thinking that belongs to a bygone age in human performance study and it speaks to the woeful inadequacy of the prosecution that it wasn't roundly demolished with two simple words: 'Bud Holland'.
I think the reason AH gets a harder time from today's pilots than do the VSOs of years gone by is partly that he is one of 'us' - operating in the same era, to the same societal and regulatory constraints, his actions have had a very serious impact on the display flying scene that enthused so many of us in our formative years. And then avoiding criminal accountability for it through a defence that persuaded a jury but appears not to have swayed the AAIB in determining cause or the RAF in continuing to display. We can be indignant about that without absolving the VSOs for their misdeeds; it's just that justice has never been so close to hand in their cases.