We should be thankful to 43” for his masterclass in what constitutes evidence and the different standards of proof that apparently apply here:
There's “no evidence”.
It's “pure speculation” that the accident is “the result” of the MB or PARE technique.
It’s “just a possibility”.
There’s “no hard evidence”.
Do you want to continue with the line that its “absolutely certain”.
How are you “so certain” that the loss of control is “difinitively because of” the recovery technique.
We have “no conclusive evidence” of “what exactly caused” this accident.
It is “plausible” that the instructor “may have” tried the A150 technique too late in the piece to have recovered or “possibly something else” complicated the recovery.
It is also “highly possible”.
It is “most likely” that “what was briefed was practiced”.
It is just “the most plausible scenario”.
Only a formidable mind could reconcile the simultaneous assertions that:
- It is most likely that what was briefed was practised, that being the most plausible scenario, and
- Any suggestion that what was briefed was practised is pure speculation supported by no evidence.
There is actually evidence, admissible in civil proceedings at least, as to what happened. There is a human being who can give first-hand evidence of what was briefed. There are written notes taken by both 'students'. Where do you think the ATSB got this from:
One of the students indicated that, during the pre-flight briefing, they were not instructed on what recovery method was recommended in the Aerobat Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH), or that it closely aligned with the PARE method. Further, they were instructed on the advantages of the Mueller/Beggs method, but not on its limitations; namely, if the Mueller/Beggs method was utilised on an Aerobat, the aircraft would not recover from a spin to the left (see Aerodynamic spins).
Both students were instructed to write down the 2 spin recovery methods on a piece of paper for reference in flight when the practical component of the spin recovery was to be undertaken. One of the students indicated that they believed they were going to utilise both methods of spin recovery during their flight instruction. The first method written down on both students’ spin recovery notes was the Mueller/Beggs method.
And the applicable standard of proof is not “certainty”. If a civil court finds, as you have found 43", that it is most likely that what was briefed was practised, that’s what the court will find happened in fact. That’s how standards of proof work. Your “most likely” far exceeds the “balance of probabilities” threshold.
The ATSB used the word “ascertain” for a reason. Of course it could not find out what happened “with certainty”. (Then there’s the “fully established” nonsense, which was ATSB’s attempt to say “ascertain” again…) ATSB does not investigate by reference to standards of proof. It leaves that to courts. You should, too, 43".