hg, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you and say instead that this is more of a lose/lose situation for defendant and the Royal Air Force. The whole ethos of Flight Safety seems to have been lost sight of in the last three years. A combination of a loose article, a convenient ledge, and a vulnerable control stick were brought violently together by a fourth feature, the arm rest that could be set to such a seemingly pointless low angle that when propelled by its motorised seat resulted in the near loss of this aircraft and its occupants. The only redeeming part of this dreadful scenario was the built in self preservation features of Airbus FBW aircraft. A very low tech accident ameliorated by very high tech design!
That is the aviation bit then, and no doubt a combination of revisions to the FOB, training, and arm rest settings have since been enacted. What we do all know is that the wretched seat occupant has faced CM for Perjury, Lying, and Negligent Performance of his Duties (in that he introduced the loose article into the trap described above). Not Guilty, Not Guilty, Guilty. Fair cop and banged to rights, but does the punishment fit the crime? Not in my book.
A Dishonourable Discharge with a Criminal Record, for doing what others here have put their hands up to (and now me!), ie using a camera in the Flight Deck? We now all know that the ledge was the last place that he should have put it down on, but he was tried for what he did, not what is now so apparent. Does his employer not bear some responsibility for that trap? Does the aircraft designer?
It strikes me that the severity of this sentence owes more to the legal implications for those last two participants. The severity of this sentence isn't about Flight Safety nor even Service Discipline, it's about politics and money and quite frankly it stinks!