you are just clearly manipulating the factual evidence as you see fit to suit your own ends. Perhaps that is why you favour the AAIB and why we normal pilots are very fortunate to have highly skilled barristers like legalapproach to clear the muddy waters that people like you churn up
Happily, I have no "ends" here, just the transparent light of day, as it might be seen to promote flying safely. I gain nor loose nothing, no matter what the outcome of this event or discussion. Our industry and pastime can loose something - public credibility and economical insurance if accidents continue. As a pilot, I gain a tiny amount, if the public, and the insurers have more faith in pilots in general.
I'm not manipulating anything - evidence is evidence, I have no access to it. I am asking questions though... I'm very inclined to trust the AAIB or other authoritative investigation group. They have no self interest in the outcome, they just report what they can determine. Their report may not be fact, but is what the pilot reported any more a fact?
The AAIB quotes the pilot (perhaps more close to fact about the pilot's knowledge):
When the pilot was asked what the spin recovery
technique should be, he commented that he had only
previously spun in a Cessna 172 and stated that you
should centralise the rudder, to stop the spin, and then
apply back pressure gently, due to the high speed.
Cessna says to "Apply and hold full rudder opposite to the direction of the spin". I don't have access to a Tiger Moth "manual", but I bet it is not far from that.
The pilot was unfamiliar with spins, so should have kept his flying a long way away from spinning, until competent. Did the pilot conduct the flight so as to avoid regimes of flight in which there was an increased risk of a spin? Was the previous flight, with the stated loop a flight avoiding an approach to spin risk?
AAIB says:
but reported later that he had encountered a problem with a restriction of the left rudder pedal
during the left turn to the north. He recalled the aircraft
being in a spin to the left and stated that although he
had pushed hard on the right rudder pedal, it would not
move and he could not recover from the spin.
And:
A detailed check on the continuity and integrity of the
controls to the ailerons, rudder, elevator and autoslots
was made from each point of control input to each
control surface, including checks for any restrictions;
nothing significant was found.
These two statements are not in harmony. Is one more "factual" than the other? If so, Why?