Have to agree on this. The facts are not disputed. At the very least the pilot is guilty of gross misconduct and caused the death of a number of people DIRECTLY because of his actions or inactions even though he was being advised differently by his first officer. These facts are just that, FACTS, as proven by the cockpit recorders. I have no idea Grant how you can possibly think otherwise!

where's your degree in air safety? perhaps you should be the investigator, prosecution, defence, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, you seem to know it all but at the end of the day you know nothing because you weren't there.

end of discussion.

Greg, I think otherwise because I was (as I said before) not involved in the case...

Just because they cannot prove he deliberately crashed the plane, doesn't mean his negligance and blatant disregard for operating procedures should be ignored. Or his disregard for human life and the lack or regard for the consequences of his CHOICE to ignore those warnings and operating procedures.

Oh geez here we go with your pathetic rhetoric.

Quite simply put fellas, if this guy was a driver on the road, who ignored a red light, a stop sign and was speeding and killed someone he'd be put away for a considerable jail term for manslaughter. The fact it was done in a commercial aircraft with more peoples lives at risk and a much higher degree for something to go wrong just amplifies the issue.

As Greg mentioned, the facts are not in dispute, it has been proven the cockpit warnings were ignored, and that the aircraft was traveling at twice the safe airspeed to land. What else is one to conclude except that the pilot was reckless and innocent people died because of his actions.

Nick,

While it is a lot of fun to speculate, and thank the great gods of the interwebbusnetthingy that it allows anyone with any level of maturity or education to do this, I'm sure that anything that is based around legal action is a lot more involved and a lot more complex than anything you can read in the Daily Terrorgraph, or whatever tawdry sensationalistic rag you choose to consume on that day.

I'm sure our resident legal minds (is that you Mr. Argy??) would only be too willing to point out the complexities of cases, especially where human lives are involved, and the need to examine all elements in these proceedings.

I don't think it is your fault that you have fallen into this lynch mob mentality, as this mode of thinking is promoted every night on network television in the A Current Affairs and Today Tonights of this world. Get a picture of someone, put some spooky music underneath and say this person is to blame gets most of the lesser minded viewers frothing at the mouth and ready to scapegoat this individual.

As Montague and Grant have so correctly pointed out, you were not there, and are working from hearsay reports. What must be realised is that the process of discovery is there for a reason and as such must be respected, for without this process of discovery within the law, I'm afraid we'll all be going back to ritualistic witch burning and stoning people for saying Jehovah!

"I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'."

Ahhhh the good old days!:D

Nick, you really should quit while you're behind, or become an undertaker... Whatever works for you...