I've closely read the report posted by Lame, and have to agree with most replies here. Since the power to the CVR and FDR are supplied by a CB, a current-sensitive device, which other circuits were disabled by the surge of power which tripped these?
Why did the judge regard FL350 as an "unusually high altitude"? I have the B737-300 performance chart in front of me, and it clearly states a typical cruise altitude of 35,000ft.
Stab trim is not, as far as I understand it, used to CONTROL descent, but to apply pitch control for level flight at ANY altitude. How many reasons can there be for full nose-down trim at cruise altitude?
Did the judge merely question the validity of the radar data, or dismiss it out-of-hand? What was the basis for his rejection?
Since the performance chart shows a typical cruise Alt/Speed as "FL350 @M0.745", is it impossible to achieve supersonic speed in a full nose-down attitude under full power? I can imagine it, although I couldn't achieve it in the sim, the overspeed clacker was deafening! (Don't tell the boss!)
To reject the views of a body as experienced as the NTSB is, to my mind, incredibly arrogant, and appears to be based on the flimsiest of excuses for obvious reasons.
Like Gaunty, I feel that more questions are raised than answered, and I feel for the families and friends of those lost in the disaster. It is a disgrace that the lives of aircraft crews and passengers can be so cavalierly dismissed in the cause of what appears to be expediency. I sincerely hope this is not the end of the matter, although I don't hold out much hope of an early or happier resolution.
Can anyone clear up any errors I may have made, or points I have missed?
Kind regards to all,
TheNightOwl.