The leak, in The Times, that the investigation into the near collision of an Air Malta plane and a microlight is “unlikely” to apportion blame on anybody, claiming “conflicting evidence” and the repeated mention of the radar equipment and the air traffic controllers, has enraged people at Malta Air Traffic Services who feel the finger should have been pointed in a very clear direction.

The near-accident took place on 21 April, a blustery stormy day with winds so strong that two cruise liners did not enter Grand Harbour.

Suddenly, out of the low lying clouds, a small microlight flew in and attempted to land right in the flight path of an incoming Air Malta Boeing 737 from Rome with 80 passengers on board. The collision was averted due to the timely intervention of the Boeing pilot as the presence of the microlight was not detected in either the plane’s or the ground radar.

The authorities’ handling of the investigation is now being questioned. The Italian pilot of the microlight was allowed to leave after just two days in Malta.

It is still not clear what he was doing in Maltese airspace on such a stormy day. He apparently told the inquiring authorities he was searching for illegal immigrants – which is hardly credible on such a stormy day.

So far, according to Herman Grech’s report in The Times, it seems the investigation focused mainly on the state of the radar and its proper functioning. After tests, it is now clear the radar was working properly on the day but the investigator, Chief Inspector Dennis Caruana, an Air Malta Airbus pilot, has now ordered further tests.

This is futile, sources that spoke to this newspaper said. It is clear the microlight was without a transponder and as such could not have shown up on the radar both on ground and on the plane as it would, at best, have been considered as ‘secondary effects’ such as a flock of birds, and so on.

Microlights do not conform to International Civil Aviation Organisation Agreement standards, as do all small planes. Besides which, microlights are not allowed to fly in overcast skies. Furthermore, the pilot’s licence was a local Italian one, not an international one.

The microlight pilot moreover told the investigating authorities he had the wrong frequencies for the airport. However, since he was flying to a different country, he should have obtained the correct information. As it was, he entered Maltese airspace unannounced and did not contact the Control Tower as he had the wrong frequencies.

Nor did he register any flight plan. Had he done so, air traffic control would have been expecting him, even in case of a transponder failure.

Why has the investigator asked for further tests on the radar, people in the sector are asking, when it is so evident the microlight was not seen because it had no transponder, also considering the huge costs of bringing in foreign experts.

Why infer that the air traffic controllers are somehow to blame? In reality, the microlight pilot could be considered an illegal immigrant: instead of by boat, he came by air, and he had a passport. But he still came unannounced, with no authorisation, and could also have caused a tragedy. And for all that, he was freed and the radar was investigated instead!