Originally Posted by HeliComparator
Why do so many people feel empowered to tell other people what they should post on this forum? It is a recurring theme every time there is an accident. People are allowed to post what they think is right and relevant, so (self righteous) people: give others the courtesy to be allowed to post what they want to post. Nobody likes a control freak.
Anyway, all accidents are sad and unfortunate, surely it goes without saying? I didn't know any of the people involved but why would it make a difference if I did?
I completely agree, all too often posters on here play the self righteous card and type what people think they want to hear, it's the corporate higher manangement tact when something goes wrong to discuss 'only facts'. The problem with that is facts may take a long time to compile especially with incidents like this one.
So this should be a condolence thread? A discussion where people post their condolences hidden by forum usernames and not their own? Is that helpful, to who?
What is the first thing we all do when we hear of a sudden death? What's our immediate reaction? Shock at the death of course but the inevitable question, "what's happened?".
Now, I happen to know the parents of 1 of the victims from the G-REDL crash and I know for a fact they looked in on PPRuNe for answers regularly, from a couple of days post the accident all the way through legal proceedings and they still do now post the Norwegian 225 accident. Why? They needed to know, they needed to know of all possible theories, they needed answers. Sometimes facts are presented in a way that make it difficult for the non aviation community to understand and more often than not, these facts are presented months, if not years after the accident.
PPRuNe is the place to come to to gather the thoughts of (some) experts. Experts being the guys at the front line that fly and maintain these machines on a daily basis. Not the generic corporate management answers but the theories and thoughts from the guys (and girls) that know the machines inside out back to front.
I'm sure there are many of us who have lost a loved one or a close friend in questionable circumstances? You can't sleep, you can't eat, you're highly stressed, every possible thought is going through your head and you want answers to try and cope. It's human nature.
I'm actually sure the G-REDL thread was edited to state "Not condolences"
Yes, this is tragic, yes some people here know the crew involved but that does not mean we should not do what comes naturally and discuss possible failure modes?
Condolence threads are not helpful, we all have empathy, we are all saddened. I think it's wrong to use the corporate tact and only talk of "facts only" - This may turn out to be a year or so down the line.
If I had lost a loved one in an aviation accident and I knew nothing about aviation, I'd be trawling the internet 24hrs a day to look for answers, answers or theories from experts, that's just me though.
So the "facts" we have at the moment is the event happening suddenly and the aircraft impacting the water at speed or with force (debris field). We know that the aircraft was needing fuel, we know that the pilot was very experienced.
The sudden nature of the accident would point to either a CFIT or a Mechanical break up. What about fuel? It left heavy and was needing a refuel shortly before the crash, someone could work out the burn rate between the time periods and rule that one out surely? CFIT? What could go wrong for the aircraft to fly itself into the water? Mechanical break up? MGB? TGB?
Just my 2 cents worth