So why was that possibility not made clear in 2.2.1.2? The pilot stands 'accused' (well, accused by his peers and the industry but seemingly not yet by the law) of pilot error. Yet the possibility of instrument error is submerged. Why? This pilot had 14,000 hours. An engineer says the static should've been checked before every flight. Apparently it wasn't.
The maintenance error on the altimeter wasn't a simple transcription error -- it was gross error. I might accept a numeral 1 for a 7, an 8 for a 9, but two digits were wrong. This suggests the wrong instrument not a simple mis-read. If the engineer was so inattentive to detail what else did he/she do with lack of attention to detail? These were servo altimeters with a static fed though a wing section.
If the tube had been leaky or even broken altogether it would have affected the indication of airspeed and altitude in a very odd manner dependant on speed and angle of attack of the wing section. The pilot could have been disoriented and given the wrong information.
If the technical argument is that the ASI suggested the static was OK then the report should explain the rationale. I don't know these specific instruments but surely the AAIB should have consulted engineers who would have some idea?