Question:
Most of the people who have posted on this topic incline to the opinion that while pilot error was present, the finding of “gross negligence” is insupportable.
If in the final analysis the verdict of gross negligence is overturned, it will not rehabilitate the reputations of Jon Tapper and Rick Cook one iota unless they are found wholly blameless. In the public mind, a finding that the pilots were culpable but not grossly negligent will be seeking to make too fine a distinction. If the cause of the accident was pilot error, the degree of error is perceived to be subsidiary to the consequences.
Newspaper reports reproduced here at the turn of the year spoke of vindication and exoneration. Is it the position that nothing short of complete vindication and exoneration from any blame will do? Or is it the purpose to rehabilitate the reputations of two good men, damned by a verdict of gross negligence, among their peers? What constitutes justice in this case?