Aviadornovato Guilt, if any in the case, is a legal consequence of causality. Of course a "cause" could imply in someone being guilty or not.
1) I think that guilt can be the object of laws and not of a serious analysis of complex facts.
2) Again on the question of causation, some simple examples can help to understand the question. We can suppose that we are seeing a body (call it A) at rest, and another one (B) coming at a steady speed and hitting it. Subsequently, A passes from rest to motion. From a Newtonian point of view, we can say that B is the cause of the motion of A. But, if we see the things from the perspective of relativity’s theory, we can’t speak in this way, because there is no absolute reference system, and if we are on A, we think that B is the cause of the change in our state; in we are on B, we think that A is the cause of the change. The only statement we can do is that an event (physically speaking) happens in the space-time continuum.
3) On correlation, another example. Suppose that, from a study based on correlation, a meaningful number of people using hard tools on Teflon pots contracts a particular form of cancer. If correlation is enough, we can say that Teflon is cancerogenic, but this statement is false, because it is impossible to construct a model in this way, since the chemical properties of Teflon don’t match with the effect. Remember, I didn’t say that correlation has no meaning, only that it isn’t enough. In fact, after some research, it appears clear that, in the production of some brands of pot, it is employed some type of glue, that can really be cancerogenic. So, now we have a sound theory, plus correlation, and the hypothesis is valid. Can we say that the glue is the cause of the cancer? No, because some individuals didn’t contract the illness, and we know that other factors (genetic, environmental, etc.) have a role, since the biochemical interactions are very complex. The glue is probably the most important factor (not cause), and therefore we will forbid the use of it in the production of pots.
4) I have a deep respect for pilots. I think that this is a very difficult and sophisticated job, requiring uncommon skills, from a technical, emotional, intellectual point of view. I think, too, that pilots should continue to think straightforward in terms of cause-effect, because this way is more efficient when you have to take decisions quickly. In fact, in practice, we say that a stone falls because is heavy and not because there is a curving of the space-time in proximity of the earth, and even in astronomical calculations we use the physics of Newton. But I think also that, when you have the time to conduct an in-depth analysis of a complex fact, you should use the more up-to-date theory, that in this case have to be systemic. In some sense, the pilot is on A, but the analysis have to take in account B, C, D, and so on, in the context of their reciprocal relations.
5) Without doubt, capt. Lima and capt. Stephanini Di Sacco were two good professionals, grown in an era when aviation in Brasil was still well organised (the symbol of those times was without doubt the former Varig, an outstanding airline). I think that in the whole world there isn’t a pilot that never did a mistake: the difference, obviously, is what, where and when. When we speak about guilt, faults and so on, the risk is that all ends only (principally) in blaming the pilots for the crash, and that this will become an alibi i.o. to avoid a meticulous review and improvement of the whole system, starting with the airport of CGH.