Well, if it is effectively all over:
Originally Posted by
airpolice
I think that there is a certain amount of satisfaction that a CM has been held.
Justice seen to be done and all that.
I do wonder about that too even though I hope it is not true. But yes, aspects of this investigation do alarm me and seem to fall short of a just and fair process.
During MilAAIB training the legal aspects and police primacy, if or when there is any possibility of criminal conduct, is beaten into you and the SI members have access to legal advice at all times. This has caused much angst in the past when police efforts have effectively undermined a timely accident investigation but the framework exists to protect all so that justice and fairness prevails. Irrespective of the verdict of this case I am very uncomfortable as to how this investigation was carried out.
I find the evidence and opinion contained within the SI report deeply troubling with more than a hint of reinforcement bias. The use of a simulator and a 'camera similar in size' just does not make a compelling case when the SI opines that the camera could not work free by itself.
The physical evidence faithfully recorded in the SI shows that the camera and stick changed shape and had physical damage, so the forces and interactions were dynamic. At or around the time the camera came free the aircraft was transitioning from negative G to positive, the aircraft was over-speeding and crew & equipment were crashing around all over the flight deck. The copilot faithfully recounts the state of chaos and the amount of stuff thrashing around the flight deck, yet the SI fails to even consider or even mention how this could have changed the situation with respect to the restriction.
The SI went on to opine that the captain's 'ok, ok, ok' mutterings were linked to him consciously removing the restriction. The human factors evidence included in the SI suggested that the pilot was completely channelised at this point, hence the repeated and non-standard behaviours. The SI has not offered how, at such a pinnacle of stress, did the captain recognise the hazard. Worryingly the SI displays more than a little bias and economy of truth when they state in their report that:
"...immediately prior to the camera becoming free, the Captain said, "ok..... ok, ok, ok," [superimposing it on the DFDR trace and adding a text caption where the camera came free to link it all together for the reader]. It was not possible to confirm what this referred to. The Panel noted that there were no obvious changes in either the flight deck indications or the aircraft attitude at this point."
Even if we set aside the bias shown in the editing of the evidence above the final sentence is an absolute howler. The rather less edited / padded DFDR data recorded earlier in the report shows that the Captain's 'ok, ok, ok' quote (using the time stamp) came at the point where the aircraft was transitioning from going ever-downwards to recovering to more normal flight. This recovery was not initiated by either pilot but by the aircraft protection systems. Given the acknowledged stress / panic during the dive the aircraft recovering would have come as some relief to both pilots. The pilots may have even believed that it was their efforts that had initialised the recovery rather than the aircraft. As such, muttering 'ok, ok, ok' at this point looks natural and not incriminating.
My final point is the legal aspects and the conduct of the SI at the point where they considered potential criminal aspects. At that stage the primacy moves to the police so that evidence can be secured and statements can be made under PACE with appropriate access to legal representation. What we have learned is that at least one SI member carried on with interviews. Not only that he apparently told at least one witness (the co-pilot) of their potentially criminal findings and (allegedly) compounding this breach of a criminal investigation by turning-off the tape machine and threatening violence.
I have no knowledge of this case outside of the public domain info and I don't know either of the pilots. I have no idea if the captain is guilty or not, but I have grave misgivings about the motives, bias and apparent misconduct by one or more members of the SI. Indeed, I can only conclude that the SPA had to think long and hard about proceeding to court once it became clear that the testimony of at least one key witness (the co-pilot) had been tainted by the SI.
Whatever the verdict I do not think the SI & MilAAIB process is operating in a fair and just manner. The Service has long maintained that witnesses giving evidence to an SI do not need legal representation, even though service personnel can be compelled or ordered to attend. Sadly, I think that position is completely untenable.