Not being argumentative but in your example surely the first is a statement of fact, not a cause and the last is mitigation of the cause not the cause itself.

Eidited to add: I appreciate the example you used was a much simplified example to make your point and I have read enough accident reports to know that the 'Swiss Cheese' model is much to blame and not a specific single event.

There isnt a day when something about this accident is not on the news, so I find it a little strange that he still hasnt been questioned - especially given the newspaper photos of him " up and about " ?

Barcli, you may wish to read the recent discussion here about that very question. No matter how much the media clatters about it, it doesn't make his interview any more or less imperative. The investigations are run by the AAIB and the Police, not the news rags.

A sincere question: how do you know he has not been questioned? Is that an assumption or a known fact?

Probably both, KenV. An assumption of a known fact because it was in the Daily Mail a few days ago so it must have been true then and there hasn't been a different statement of known fact since then so it must still be true.

Or maybe...

I'm slightly surprised that the pilot would have been near his own home, rather than staying with friends or family.

edit: to avoid the press, just in case anyone thinks I mean investigators or police.

Aox, given the lack of coverage was he hounded?

I doubt it make any difference, the press have their sources and on past form they are quite good at establishing the whereabouts of pilots involved in accidents and their friends and family if they want to.

Perhaps any pause before interview is to allow those investigating ( be it AAIB or Police) to gather as much factual data from wreckage, maintenance/operating/logbook records, video, eye-witnesses, R/T recordings etc as possible to guide their line of questioning.

If you already know the answers to many questions, it helps you to differentiate between those questions where you are trying to illicit confirmation from the pilot, as distinct from those where you are exploring the things that only he knows: what did he see, think, decide and do in that cockpit on that day.

Edited to add. Alternatively, like many involved in major traumatic incidents, he may have no memory at all of what happened in the period during and immediately leading up to the accident. Totally different environment, but some time ago a motorcyclist ran into the back of my car at speed while I was stationary, waiting to turn right: he was up and walking in the hospital 24 hours later but, to this day, he has no recollection of the accident, or the few minutes leading up to it. No amount of questioning will illicit any useful evidence from him.

For those with a genuine interest rather than those seeking the more sensational speculation, the October 2015 AAIB Bulletin is just being released. It will contain the Special Bulletin as seen previously, but no further information on the Shoreham Accident.

Anything yet on the tragic Gnat accident?

CAA progress report on airshow review published:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1351...ressReport.pdf

Shoorly Shum Mishtake Mish Munnypenny, not ALL Hunters are grounded.

All Hunters operating on a G-registration. The HHA aircraft are operated on the military register.

Oh dear Shoreham air crash report finds jet 'had expired parts' - BBC News

ATC - yr link doesn't work (for me).

JaJ, try this one.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...015_G-BXFI.pdf

Unfortunately very similar to the "Thunder City" accident.

Try this: http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-21/s...of-date-parts/

A can of worms being opened slowly. Was the airframe "Airworthy?" Maybe not in the AAIBs view? Seat carts out of date is straight out of the Thunder City accident..

But as he didn't appear to have used it, is it relevant pertaining to the accident.