Courtney - it is perhaps admirable the loyalty shown in playing devils advocate that very many possibilities are possible and actually the fact remains that all of this is "on the balance of probability". Few are calling for or would want the pilot to be prosecuted because it wouldn't really achieve very much and he is also a victim of the broader failures highlighted in the report.
What sticks in the caw is this high ground that personally I think starts to become silly. From the outset of this accident hackles got raised if/when anyone dared to suggested the figure flown looked scruffy. You in particular threw a doubt over the start height being low by suggesting maybe you could pull up from a low pass and until the nose was x deg it wasn't technically aerobatic etc, etc. Regardless of wishing to discuss that now, nobody is racing to go on record with that defence and the BADA statement suggests that human factors trump technical ones.
I asked you to clarify your own remarks about which instrument you saw as having an issue and what casual affect it may have. You don't want to answer because you can't answer. I didn't want to put words in your mouth but I'll assume you refer to the altimeter because of your post No.125 (for now) which I'll quote here for ref:-
B2N2,
Page 29 of the report - picture. At X750 feet on the altimeter, the broader part of the needle obscures the thousands of feet and the tens of thousands of feet on the counter.
From page 128 of the report:
Quote:
‘Analysis has been undertaken to identify the scope of human actions and/or decisions to have contributed to the loop being continued when below the pilot’s stated minimum height at the apex. It is not possible to determine which, if any, of these actions took place based on the evidence available for the HF analysis, but the following accounts are considered credible and feasible:
a. The altimeter may not have been seen or read at the apex of the loop as a result of scan pattern, high workload, allocation of attention, distraction (for instance, from detecting a reduction in thrust during the climb or the airspeed being lower than expected), and/or visual limitations (such as contrast and glare).
b. An inaccurate perception of aircraft height may have been obtained, specifically, that the aircraft was higher than it was as a result of the altimeter displaying the incorrect altitude, a misleading or ambiguous display of the altimeter digit drum [height counter], the altimeter digit drum [height counter] being partially obscured, and/or the altimeter being misread.
c. The minimum height required at apex may have been recalled incorrectly.
d. An escape manoeuvre may have not been selected as a result of the limited time available to select and implement the action, and the guidance and training that the pilot received with regard to performing an escape manoeuvre at the apex of a loop in the Hunter.’
The point b. of the AAIB report isn't replicated faithfully however in your post. What it should show is this.
"That the aircraft was higher than it was as a result of the altimeter displaying the incorrect altitude
61"
Where 61 refers to this comment by the AAIB:-
61 The RAFCAM report was prepared before the results of the altimeter testing were available.
So on the basis that the AAIB do not then cite the altimeter as causal to the accident and in their own summary from page 166 [2.3 Technical issues relevant to the accident flight] they summarise that section dealing with the altimeter as follows [page 168]
Overall, whether in servo or standby mode, the left altimeter would have indicated a lower altitude at the apex of the accident manoeuvre than the aircraft actually achieved.
That is why I suggest the AAIB do not give greater emphasis to any altimeter issue in the overall summary to the accident.
You wanted to wait until the AAIB published their final report, its taken a while, its a comprehensive document, you say you've read it all but its incomplete. If you take that view have the grace to be unambiguous with the reason why i.e:-
From what I've seen in the various reports, there is too much stated doubt in the report at this stage to draw any legal conclusions. Despite the will of the people.
I can only speak personally but the legal conclusion is not a factor in any comments but the debate on things of a flight safety matter can be misdirected if focus is distracted on things that simply are less important than others.