Without putting too fine a point on it, Aska was less than honest when disclosing his “track record”.
Why might that be? I don’t think you need to have a particularly high IQ to work that one out.
So based on ‘incomplete information’ a decision was taken to hire him.
Q: had full and complete disclosure occurred, would he have been hired?
Clearly this omission must be regarded as at least a chink in the armour of the family’s case?
Despite his shortcomings and repeat / additional training he did complete the course as prescribed by the FAA, the Regulatory body. So by definition, his training was regarded as adequate by the Regulator otherwise he would not have been permitted to operate.
As tragic as it was on that fateful day, he had been adequately trained.
As to why he took that particular course of action is something the psychologists will need to ponder.
If any family needs to feel aggrieved, it is that of the Captain and the other crew on board.
I presume that company “death in service” benefit exists.
As someone who has attended two Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland, (The rest of the UK have Inquests) as a witness (aircraft crashes) and a subsequent High Court action, the law, conducted by non aviators, can be an interesting process to observe.