Originally Posted by prospector
majority are the result of errors of ommission or commission.
I'm not arguing that. But
where were the errors of commission or omission? You quote airspeed and configuration in you post, yet provide no links to
factual, provable data in support of your contention, which IMO makes it no more than supposition, hearsay and rumour. Now when I say that I'm not talking specifically to the Garuda crash, but more generally to damn near every crash/incident "reported" here and the inevitable speculation, supposition and hearsay that surrounds each and every one of those incidents. Again, go back to the original post, read and understand it and you may come to some understanding of what I'm saying.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF
EVERY RELEVANT
FACT THEN ANY SPECULATION SERVES MORE TO MUDDY THE WATERS THAN PROVIDE ANY USEFUL DATA.
Small wonder that so many crash/incident causes go
undiscovered or
unreported when so many of us are so willing to pass such harsh
public judgement on our peers with so little information available to us.