I am not specially surprised by the tribunal's decision. I raised my query only because it often (and this time) appears that some posters vote with their emotions before thinking things through.
Regardless of the sequence of events on the flight deck, Mr Masson was the responsible officer and regardless of how the idea for his tribunal presentation came to him, by recommendation or by imagination, it is disheartening to hear that he used such a tactic. I suspect that in extremis more of us than we care to believe might look for "aquital on a technicality." I was about to write "blame it on the FO" but strictly speaking that is not what he was doing. I think he was claiming that his dismissal was not punishment in appropriate proportion to that given to the FO, which is a little different.
In passing, a comment on " can't practice for war. . . . . ." We had one of those reality programs about a batch of trainees on the F18 in Canada, "Jetstream." In one sequence a trainee was chewed out for not returning to base after having, and dealing correctly with, an engine control light, apparently a not uncommon problem. In a following sequence another student was castigated for suggesting that he might need to return to base during only his second or third F18 solo for deteriorating weather. The call was "you can't return to base for every little thing if it is a real mission."
Apparently no one saw the irony.
As an aside, I have no idea at all why Mr Masson uses Pablo as opposed to Paul, but just maybe he wants to avoid being confused with a Californian wine maker.