1. The MAA definition of 'Cause' is "the event that led directly to the accident".
2. In my view, the 'accident' was the death of the pilot. He should have survived this ejection - the MAA report says so. Had he survived, this would not have been an accident, probably only an incident.
3. In my view, the 'event' that led directly to the pilot's death was the failure of the drogue shackle to operate correctly. Not, in my view, the inadvertent operation of the seat pan handle.
I don't think stands rigorous scrutiny. If I drive off the road into a tree and my seatbelt was incorrectly attached to the car structure, allowing me to be thrown through the windscreen and at the tree, then:
1) The cause of the accident will be whatever precipitated my departure from the road
2) The cause of death will be 'blunt force trauma' after hitting the tree, and
3) A contributory factor (to death) will be the failure of the seatbelt to perform its designed function due to incorrect installation
Surely that analogy holds for this tragic case?