Hi Dave Reid --
Firstly the 'wooliness'. From Paragraph 2.2.1.2 --
The RAFCAM HF report identified four reasons why the accident manoeuvre
may have been continued:
• The pilot did not check the altimeter.
• The pilot checked the altimeter but did not or could not read
it correctly.
• The pilot read the altimeter correctly but did not accurately
recall the minimum height required at the apex of the looping
manoeuvre for this aircraft.
• The pilot read the height correctly but decided that an escape
manoeuvre was no longer possible.
If a false understanding of his height at the apex led him to believe it was
sufficient to complete the manoeuvre, he would have had no reason to
discontinue it or eject.
Every bullet-point says "pilot error". Surely a complete scientific well-written report would have added the bullet point "The altimeter(s) indicated the incorrect altitude"? I'm not saying that the altimeter(s) necessarily were showing the wrong level but the absence of that possibility - however remote - indicates a bias or prejudice. I called that 'wooly'.
As for the cameras not seeing the altimeters on the accident flight, you are correct. The AAIB "deduced" that the static was OK from vision of the ASI, not the altimeter. Sorry for any confusion I caused. I think I should have printed the whole report and gone through it on the dining room table. Mea culpa.
However, the AAIB report does not explain how they 'knew' the static to the altimeters were intact -- it is an assumption. They're possibly right. An engineer earlier in this thread who has service experience on type during the a/c's duration of service told us that it was normal for the static to be checked EVERY flight owing to the kind of flying these a/c do. The report does not confirm when the last static check was carried out and the report states that there was a maintenance issue with the altimeter(s). I believe there is only one static which feeds both the ASIs and the altimeters. Given the dynamic nature of the "static" I think this should have been more carefully explained.
If this was a court case and I was a juror, I think - based only on the evidence of the report - I would be that awkward s*d who would hold out. Therein lies both the strength and weakness of a jury system, I suppose?
Edit: Since the case against the pilot is 'too low too slow' the ASI and altimeters are the most important evidence.