Despite the MoD finding that the crew had engaged the patrol "without the required authorisation", the US enquiry concluded that, according to Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman, the crew "followed the procedures and processes for engaging targets". How do you square that particular circle?
The intent to avoid any damning admission of failure is no doubt driven by events elsewhere, such as the appeal made by USAF F16 pilot Maj. Harry Schmidt, who was disciplined following his bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan during April of 2002. Schmidt's lawyers for the appeal argued that punishing him would have "an adverse effect on the future performance of air force pilots".
They went on to state: "A finding of guilt and imposition of punishment of a pilot, who acted in self-defence in a combat situation, even though his decision was objectively determined to be in error with the benefit of hindsight, sends a profoundly wrong message to other pilots who are flying" - "Hesitation and indecision out of fear that judgment will be second-guessed are potentially more dangerous to combat pilots than honest mistakes made by good officers under the stress of combat".
Despite their best efforts, Schmidt's appeal was thrown out. However, you don't need 20/20 vision to see the logic in avoiding, at all costs, the fall out from prosecuting such apparent acts of negligence. Perhaps it is now accepted that the arguments made by Schmidt's lawyers are paramount in all such cases. Or perhaps it was simply Schmidt's misfortune that it was Canadians and not Brits that were on the ground at the time - the Canadian DND/CF perhaps not being quite so co-operative as our own MoD appear to have been.
I suspect that once the Coroner closes the case, nothing more will be heard.