Nice reply, thank you.
Post hoc still seems relevant. You question the questions. Because of this, that does not necessarily follow. Fallacy is a good word to use. Cracks happen because of cycles or cracks are going to happen when they are looked for?
I don’t and didn’t question the background, or the man. Unless she has a demonstrable history of obfuscation, diffusion, deflection, lying and subterfuge. You write better than Alan so I suspect I think more highly of you. Competition in that arena however, is not strong. I merely questioned the questioning.
Given you are retired and have no interest in Qf at all (excepting you know a pilot or two) please provide the evidence that will allow me to sleep soundly in my reclining semi bed at 35,000’ that says Qf hasn’t stooped to verbiage to prove its safety culture. I have the deepest respect for anyone who works as an Engineer on jet fleets and though I’ve only met Mr Purvinas once (he didn’t know it at the time) his word on anything airframe related is better than gold to me. Saying ‘Good news - you are (wrong)’ just doesn’t quite cut it in the conversation we are having.
If ‘we’ (and I am so far from ‘we’ as to be laughable) are countering a ‘dark counter campaign’ then surely it would be all too easy to debunk? Given it would be so easy, please debunk.
Steve’s given what I see as very credible evidence of cycles/tail numbers etc. It’s clearly wrong or upsetting you deeply. Obviously you have a counter argument.