Originally Posted by
Gordy
Tell me ANY facts that would preclude a healthy discussion?
As Gordy suggests, critical facts are often missing following an accident, so "speculation" is often required to full the gaps. (Just how speculative the speculation is depends on the experience and knowledge of the speculator). The aim of the exercise is to avoid a repetition of the accident, not protect fragile egos. Anecdotal evidence is often used to build a profile of unfortunate aviators by inquiry teams, were they risk takers, were they professional, did they follow rules when the opportunity for doing otherwise presented itself.
I am definitely not a fan of needlessly desecrating the reputation of a deceased aviator (insert Daily Mail article here...), but every time you sign out and take off, if the worst happens, you are liable to external scrutiny that will determine whether on the day you screwed up or not. It's a bit late to check the "no publicity" box when you have just made your own smoking hole.