Is this what we can expect from the MAA now, an absolute cast iron piece of CYA report writing that almost misses the point with its circuitous nature?
100% agree. It seems like the average time between crash and crash mag is something like 3 years now, which strikes me as ridiculous. In the majority of cases I reckon the main cause has been identified fairly swiftly; the trouble is that every slight inconsistency uncovered during the investigation seems to get utterly pulled apart, and even if it's of no consequence to the accident, attracts criticism and supervisory hand-wringing.
Given the choice between a "bring in the guilty bastard" kangaroo court and a pedestrian, plodding but fair investigation, I'd choose the latter. However in the process of dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't', I believe the glacial pace of reporting in the last few years is posing its own risks. Many of us have our own understanding of what happened to Red 4 at Bournemouth, for example, by reading between the lines of the directives that emanate from higher command every time the SI makes a behind-the-scenes interim report. "We should be told" is the appropriate cliche, I feel. As an even more ridiculous example, look at the Harrier landing crash at KAF in 2009. The report was published in 2012, by which time a similiar situation could easily have arisen several more times, even if the aircraft type hadn't left service. But it was a thorough report
