Originally Posted by
megan
The CAB made no statement other than it slid rearward for some hundreds of feet, I'm not looking up the figure quoted. It matters not what the aircraft did in its slide because its not pertinent. How the aircraft came to rest inverted is not pertinent, as much as you want to make an issue of it.
We went over this in excruciating detail a couple weeks ago. Wreckage was spread for a length of 1200 feet from the embankment to the final mass. From the 380 foot point the plane slid (per the CAB) tail first another 820 feet. Do the math.
This is an untrue statement. It's not a lie, it's an error. It's easy to show the report is wrong, but it's hard to tell what happened. Hence the puzzle.
Current practise in any fatal accident is a toxicology report on the crew, whether they had ingested prescribed medication, over the counter medication, alcohol or illicit drugs, to see if they may have had an effect on the crews performance. Investigation is also made if they had adequate rest, and how much, prior to duty, and if they had any personal issues within their lives - pending divorce, death in the family, extremely sick children etc etc. This report is silent on those issues, should I allege the CAB were slack in not addressing this important issue? Sloppy work?
No, I'm fine with them not reporting that. However, if they had reported that a crew member was getting divorced and it turns out the crew member was never married, I'd call that sloppy. The issue here is not that some detail was omitted but that an error was allowed to remain.
You have absolutely no idea of what caused the aircraft to invert, and the only part lying over the ditch is the very forward section of the wing box, and only just at that. The aircraft is not lying across the ditch as you are so willing to incorrectly state.
The aircraft is covering the ditch; it is lying across it. It doesn't cover the entire ditch because the ditch is wider than the plane. But it covers part of the ditch, so it is lying across it. If say you're lying across a seam in the carpet, that doesn't mean your belt buckle must be in contact with the seam to make the statement true. For one who was pretty emphatic about my inability to comprehend, you're not showing yourself to advantage here.
You have absolutely no idea of the aircrafts gyrations from the time it hit the embankment ... to the point at which it came to rest.
Well, a pretty sketchy idea at best. That's what I'm working on. I bring my thoughts here so people can critique. Concours77 pointed out my error on the ditch, for example, for which I'm grateful.
At least one fuselage diameter past the ditch? Where in the world do you come up with such ridiculous statements? You have absolutely no idea of what caused the aircraft to invert, nor how the kinetic energy was dissipated in order for the aircraft to end where it did.
It's in my document. If the plane stubbed against the ditch and flipped forward, it could have done it a couple ways. Test it with a box of kleenex on a desk. It might hit, rotate about the point where it hit, gone vertical, tipped over and landed on its back. The box of kleenex will be one box-height from the stubbing point.
For the plane to land on top of the ditch when it flipped, it must have bounced at least one fuselage-height into the air while pitching forward. This is a relatively high-energy arrival, not a sliding stop. I can't quantify it for you, but you're bright enough to envision what I'm saying. So if the ditch played a role, then it didn't hit the ditch and tip forward, it hit the ditch and bounced into the air at least 13 feet.