Why did the report not mention the Captain's signature on the Tech Log and the clear responsibility that is implied and enshrined in CS 25? IMHO most Captains do the first walk round of the day to help satisfy themselves that the aircraft is fit to fly, particularly after overnight engineering work. Is this not usually the case?
It seems harsh to bring the tug driver into this without bringing in the eye-witness reports of all the other aircraft taxiing out/in - some of whom may have noticed the cowls unlatched (and flapping?) state - and the ultimate responsibility of the aircraft commander.
The report looks at Human Factors but was limited to the technicians only - why?
The report goes on to say that one of the immediate causes was that the aircraft was signed off as serviceable - which is where the Captain's signature comes in. The aircraft is not allowed to fly unless the commander has signed to say that it is - regardless of engineering activity.
All the company issues mentioned on the engineering side need addressing - but also on the FC side as well. The report does not look at that.
