Undoubtedly this was a very serious incident and the officer in question was clearly negligent in his actions (as per the findings of the CM) which did cause considerable damage to, the aircraft, and many injuries on board.
However, I was extremely surprised to see things like costs introduced to the summing up by the prosecution in a bid to 'bolster their argument'.
I recall a very famous incident of a wheels up landing in a hawk which not only caused considerable damage the aircraft, but did considerable damage to many cars and a control tower......
I don't think the officer was dismissed from the service (nor went to a CM), and indeed I recall a very honest self appraisal of the accident in a well known safety publication.
I think there would have been quite a sum of money involved there too?
Presumably the main thrust of the CM was based on a judgement of whether the officer in question was being dishonest about the accident? Now he's been proven not guilty on these counts, it seems that dismissing him from the service, because 'he cost us a lot of money' is cutting ones nose off to spite ones face?
We have, after all, invested a considerable amount of time and money, in this officer over many years?
Last edited by Treble one; 3rd Mar 2017 at 16:47.