virginblue
The underlying question would be pretty straightforward: Was there a threat - and if so, was it justified to wait for 5 hours to divert because the decision was so difficult to make?
You assume there was only one incident, and that there was a delay of 5 hours between that single incident and the decision to divert. Your assumptions may turn out to be correct but, at the moment, they are merely assumptions based upon limited information. Judges base their decisions upon facts found to be proved.
So it all boils down to the factual scenario - what did actually happen on board of that aircraft?
Not all, but it would be the starting point.
the sheer numbers will not be in favour of the captain
Maybe, but judges consider quality as well as quantity.
"United will easily find a Dani-style expert witness"
I'm sure they could but I doubt very much they would want to. No competent lawyer would. Just a few examples:
Post #67: "Let me guess: The captain was near his 60's. These guys should just go.
"Post #158: "I think the case is closed" and: "I think it's also no coincidence that this incident happened in a major airline. And in the US."
"The captain a Rainboe-style expert witness"
Possibly not for a case of this nature, but Rainboe has qualities I always looked for in an expert witness when I was a barrister: Long experience, depth of knowledge, a 'facts first, conclusions second' approach, says what he thinks even if it's not what others want to hear.
"if there is, as so often, conflicting expert evidence, not much is won from the judge's point of view."
That is not correct.
Judges are well practised in assessing the respective quality of experts giving conflicting opinions. (And they would have done it for decades even before becoming judges.)
Based on an assessment what the most likely evidence presented to a court would be, I would be very very hesitant to tell the captain that his case is rock solid and that he has nothing to worry about. So how about a golden hand-shake?
There we differ.
Firstly, circumstances in which any (competent) lawyer would tell any client that his case is rock solid are very rare.
Secondly, no (competent) lawyer would give the captain an opinion either way until he was in possession of, and had closely examined, all the available evidence.
That includes the captain's account of what happened and his reasons for doing what he did.
The theoretical application of law is one thing, how it works out in the court-room is another. You will know that as much as I do.
I've been working in the courts for 35 years, fighting cases for the first 33 of them and now in a different capacity. You can safely assume that I know a great deal about how judges approach cases.
.