..having spoken to him later, he was quite clear that whilst he hadn't mentioned this in his statement to the BOI, it wasn't a 'change' to his evidence. He simply hadn't been asked! The FAI saw an addition.
I am sure anyone who has been involved in an investigation of events such as this tragedy, even when seeking the absolute right answer, understands exactly how true that statement is re Witness Statements.
Witnesses, sometimes go home with accurate, reliable, and relevant information simply because they were not asked the right question and did not think to offer it up at the time of Interview.
That the very information surfaces later is no reflection upon them but rather to person doing the interview. Likewise, it helps if the Interviewer knows the right questions to be asking.
Lawyers in my Country use Depositions to gather information prior to Civil Litigation in Court. Many a case was lost because they failed to ask the right Question, especially when questioning folks testifying in Court.
All this talk about the Rules, once again, proves to me there is far too much concern about something written on paper as though it were really etched in Stone. That assumes the commentator "knows for a fact" what the Crew was seeing at the time. That is something that simply cannot be.
Likewise, there are so many Rules that at some point they paint you into a corner and no matter what you do, you violate a Rule. Which Rule do you choose Violate?
Stay down in VMC, clear of Cloud and Icing, or pop up and get an IFR Clearance.
In my Country, you must have the Clearance first and maintain VMC.
Is that what the attempted Radio Call was about, trying to get some sort of IFR Clearance before going IMC?
Just who would they have talked to in trying to obtain that IFR Clearance that could hear them at that Altitude and location? How long would it have taken to obtain that clearance?