FL - the reason I said
That is a failure of the AAIB not the legal system because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.
is because when I asked
Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?
You replied
Answer: No.
The issue is flight safety.
then further write
I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it.
Where did the pilot of G-AOIL not fully co-operate? He did, he maintained all along that he had a control restriction. Its just the AAIB did not choose to focus upon that element.
The pilot died in G-STYX so he was never going to be fully co-operate was he, but where in the link here:-
https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxs...ome/background
Who didn't co-operate in that investigation? Was the final report flawed because the people didn't co-operate or because the conclusions were just wrong/incomplete? In that link I can read:-
the case against the inspector was deeply flawed, that the AAIB report had drawn conclusions from the evidence that were not fully supported by it
That is not the same as the AAIB tried did the best with what material they had.
Nor is it the same as attempting to charge people on the basis of their own evidence which was given in good faith.
When you say
The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail.
Yes you can follow the logic of the view but in practice how many examples really fit that narrative?