Pace, thereby lies the problem , if your may be right about PIC skirting around the 'truth'. i.e its what he's not said that matters. However, the onus on proof lies with the prosecution so PIC is innocent until proven guilty.
I am generally in the "string em up by the wotsits mob" when it comes to anything that compromises safety but, in this case, despite poor RT and an
alleged infringment of airspace would it be in the public interest to prosecute? As a deterrent to others - perhaps. As a punishment - surely compulsory retraining would yield a better result.
As regards the actual crash, the Procurator would have to prove that PIC was negligent or wreckless in his conduct of the flight and that resulted in the crash ( although until a charge is brought I can only speculate as to whether this would be the appropriate test ) Again, as there were no injuries or damage to persons or property I think it is unlikley that PF would see that a prosecution is in the public interest. Conflicting evidence as a result of damage to the aircraft, lack of independent corroberation and the fact that the pilot claims that he had enugh fuel but that the donk conked out - might challenge a fiscal depute.
If, as has been mentioned, this had resulted in a fatality then in Scotland there would be a Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) which is a statutory public inquiry into the circumstances of a death.
The Procurator Fiscal can hold a FAI where there are issues of public safety or matters of general public concern arising from a death and there is a need to highlight hazardous or dangerous circumstances or systems that have caused or contributed to it.
Interestingly, a
FAI cannot make any findings of fault/blame against individuals. Similarly,
The fundamental purpose of the AAIB is:
"To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence"
...It is not to apportion blame or liability.
So, it is over to the CAA to decide whether to seek a prosecution.
As a case study it may be text book - even if Vince might not agree!
Re the CTR Bust, at 7000' was he not out of the Edinburgh Zone but in the scottish TMA? I'm sorry , I don't have any charts with me today but that is Class D airspace above 6000ft and class E 2500 - 6000? At the EDI CTR boundary if he was above 6000' ( climbing to FL10? ) was he technically still in the TMA? Clearance is required - was this given?