View Single Post
Old 14th Jan 2018, 01:00   #395 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,966
See Megan, that's why your contributions are important to me. When I propose an idea, I can always depend on you coming to the table with the strongest argument you can muster. Apparently that was it.
Glad to have been of help. Nevertheless, what I said is true, had it been a statement made by the CAB you would be all over it complaining about their lack of exactitude, and written a hundred page dossier on why they got it wrong.

You are making much of the CAB simple sliding statement, overly much I should say, and what you've put forward doesn't stand, for the simple reason no one here knows what manoeuvres the aircraft went through to reach its final location. It's all guestamology (new word). We can all come up with plausible, in our own mind, theories. Personally, I can see how the aircraft could plausibility have slid backwards to almost its resting place, but it's not provable from the evidence to hand (photographs), and I'm not about to engage in debating theories.

I use hard facts, such as the embankment scar that proves beyond doubt the aircraft was in a near vertical bank. What happened between that point and the resting place is all guestamology to anyone who has not had the benefit of surveying the wreckage distribution and ground scars. Get map of the wreckage distribution and you are a long way forward to actually understanding how events played out. They would also have made a map of ground scars, perhaps superimposed on the wreckage distribution. Get those and you have it wrapped up, until then any theories proposed are pie in the sky.
His Wiki CV reports his career summed up by this title......politician
There are always political appointees on the board.
megan is offline   Reply With Quote