[QUOTE=FlexibleResponse;10851324]Investigation number:
AO-2017-118
1. "From this, the ATSB considers the levels of CO detected were likely to have adversely affected the pilot’s ability to control the aircraft during the flight."
2. "From the above activities, the ATSB found pre‑existing cracking of the engine exhaust collector-ring, which could lead to exhaust leakage into the engine bay."
3. "Further, the ATSB found a breach in the firewall from missing bolts used to secure magneto access panels in the firewall under the instrument panel in the cabin."
(my bold text)
It seems a pretty much open and shut case?"
Open and shut case? Your faith in investigative agencies is somewhat stronger than mine. A claim made by a report is not koran.
1. The pilot’s ability to takeoff and manoeuvre at low altitude is not consistent with being ‘adversely affected’.
- The sudden, nose dive is not consistent with elevated levels of CO. Relaxation, unconsciousness are usual.
2. The initial post crash exhaust examination did not detect a preexisting crack. That became apparent 2 years later when the CO theory was put forward.
3. The 3 hole breach in the firewall, also not noted in initial inspection, is insignificant. Besides, flow through holes would be forward from cabin into engine bay due to the low pressure induced by airflow over engine bay cowling.
What appears to have happened here is that a cause of crash has been latched onto and then reverse engineered the evidence to support. Normally, the evidence is gathered and then a deduction is made.