And - unusually for a report like this - there isn't any transcript
.
What do you think Table 10 is then if it is not a transcript? Have a good look at what is stated.To me it seems as though the PIC had his mind set on ditching fairly early on.
There is nothing in this report that suggests the crew had no other option but to ditch. That 4th approach was not a serious attempt to try and get below the cloud base. One thing I hadn't realised was that in addition to the Rad Alt this aircraft had an EGPWS! Fully configured using the A/P in V/S mode would have mitigated the risk of getting lower on the approach. The statement by the PIC:
At 0930, the captain told the first officer that they would not be ‘busting’ any landing minimas,
suggests a complete lack of understanding of the situation they were faced with.
The report finally sheds some light on the F/O's contribution to the event. She was doing a lot of managing upwards. The PIC just seemed to be shutting down to any course of action other than ditching. I'm not sure if the first report stated that she had sustained a serious injury but I am not surprised that she did not want any part of any discussion outside of the ATSB investigation. In my view she did a good job but short of taking over she was restricted by the PIC's performance.
As for whether the CVR/FDR should have been recovered earlier its completely irrelevant now as they were recovered and they have added to the reader's understanding of the events leading up to the ditching. As for the assertions that this would be another cover-up and released at a time when no one was looking (34 days! spare us your hubris Sunfish
) then the assertions are wrong.
Is it going to satisfy those who think that the PIC was an innocent victim? No probably not, but I think that it is able to provide some good lessons to anyone operating to remote airstrips and some good insight into what happens when CRM breaks down.