Originally Posted by
cordwainer
In other words, the chart shows the entire ground envelope provided by Lockheed, based on different data sets, even though they considered the "inner boundary" to be the only possible one. How on earth could the CAB have shown what was meant by the "inner boundary" without also showing the entire envelope from Lockheed's study? They didn't just willy-nilly add some "possibility space".
We have no evidence that Lockheed provided anything but the inner boundary. If Lockheed said that was the only possible path, why would Lockheed provide some impossible paths? So yes, I suspect the CAB just added some possibility space.
Well, Northwest was being sued by passengers, or facing paying out judgments, so it would be in their best interests to try to shake the CAB's findings of negligence.
We have no indication of what the 22 specific errors were that NWA provided to the CAB. We don't know that they related to any NWA negligence as opposed to untenable CAB scenarios. We simply don't know what was alleged.
"...it felt like" and "imagining" are well beyond conjecture based on evidence, and right into pulling theories out of the air.
It comes with the territory after chewing on this for three years. I don't ask anyone to accept it.