Unlike the chicken and the egg, we know which came first here, but first doesn't necessarily mean cause. I agree with engines that the accident was the pilot's death, but the cause of that death was the failure of his parachute to deploy. The inadvertent ejection triggered the sequence that led to that cause, ie it contributed to it, but was not the cause of death.
Having said that, if any accidental ejection for whatever reason is now considered an accident per se, it rather muddies the waters. It also seems to conflict with the MAA definition of an accident, but no doubt discretion can be exercised, the question is by whom?
As others have said, this Report reads like a mangled schoolboy essay that the dog ate but then coughed up. It has revisionism written all over it. That is a problem shared with other BoI's and SI's featured in this forum. How can anyone take such a Report on trust? How do we know that the accident cause in the Report was even that found by the SI Panel? How can such a Report prevent future accidents if it can't be trusted? Do you trust it?
Last edited by Chugalug2; 27th Feb 2014 at 22:26.