Originally Posted by
airsupport
Good idea.
At that picnic I would like to see just how many people believe as I do, that this crash had little to do with the Pilots, rather it was caused by a design flaw with the composite structure, weakened by the continual ingress of water into it because of the routes it operated.
Still we can't have all A300/A310s grounded, better to blame the Pilots.
So, am I to conclude from your comment that you believe the aileron and rudder control input and reversals, to the same maximum deflection as occured on this aircraft, if occuring on any other aircraft, would have been transparent and non-eventful?
I am not a structures expert by any stretch of anyone's imagination, and I know even less about composite structures; but, if your allegation has any merit, wouldn't it be true that other, similarly constructed aircraft, subjected to similar routes with similar frequencies, would be found to have the same type of structural weakening you describe?
Originally Posted by
airsupport
IF that is what they mean, why don't they say that.
I guess because they want to make the report as ambiguous as possible, and aid in the cover up of the facts.
As typical of such report, this one contains “factual statements.” My experience with NTSB accident reports are that they don’t go into overly lengthy explanations when a detailed and scientific concept is being used in the analysis – presuming that those who are interested either know the scientific and engineering concepts involved or will research on their own so as to be able to understand the rationale behind their conclusions.
I guess I just have a problem with those who continue to deny observable, incontrovertible facts … facts that are evident to anyone … in preference for a belief that professionals, with no personal or professional motivation, are attempting to “cover up” a sinister problem that, were it to exist, is likely to raise it’s ugly head again in the future and cost additional lives and untold damage.