Originally Posted by
BRDuBois
Yes, this might have happened. I discussed how it might have bounced forward in my document. In some fashion it had to be pointing forward. Point being, this means the CAB assertion that it slid backward is wrong, and until that is recognized it's impossible to grapple with the puzzle. Again, this is not a moral judgment about the CAB but a statement of fact. There's something wrong in how the CAB reported it.
This is not about gleefully pointing out that the CAB investigators were a bunch of idiots. There is a major error in this minor aspect of the investigation, and it raises a puzzle. So the questions are: How did the plane get into that position? What else (if anything) did the CAB get wrong?
If you reverse-engineer the plane's arrival at the final site, you start to see a very different impact scenario.
Only to add support to what looks like the preferred theory, mind that the tail section was attached to the wings throughout, via the keel beams. We know this because both assemblies came to rest together, though not correctly aligned.
The tail follows the airplane, always, in flight, and even here, in its demise. Not solidly attached by any means, but connected nonetheless. Imagine the tail wagging, as in dog’s tail, as it slid to its rest.
Your explanation is elegant, and enhances what is most likely the probable path.
Great respect,
concours