Creampuff, I think your razor is getting blunt. Okham's Razor tells us the simplest answer is probably correct and to avoid complicated reasoning.
The 'simplest' answer is pilot error.
[T]he psychology of the human bias was covered in both courses I took part in on Auditing and Investigations.
And what did those courses say about attributing cause to pilot error alone? I thought we'd learned enough about accidents and incidents to go on to ask the question that is more helpful if the aim is reduction in risk of recurrence:
Why did the pilot make the error? Indeed, there was a time at which I believed (perhaps naively) that that was the ATSB's job.
Creamy can probably help me out here, an additional QON could be asked of the Professor: Is this COF acceptable under the provisions of the FOI Act or is it possibly a breach of the Act?
The 'simplest' explanation is that a document containing that information does not exist. The next is that it exists but is subject to a valid exemption from disclosure. The next a stuff up. The next after that is naughtiness.
Amended to add: understood gaunty
