Snanceki said:
Maybe I'm being difficult but I don't understand your answer. Maybe you are just reiterating what I said. Maybe not.
Possibly because I am guilty of not answering it. An apology and explanation are in order.
Sorry.
Explanation:
I just hate the way some news media capitalise on natural human curiosity by sensationalising matters. They do so, in a subtle way, by using sensationalising words. A hand-made objet d'art can be unique, never to be repeated. Using the Unique word to describe an event is imprecise to say the least. I would grudgingly go along with 'hitherto unique'
If you are objecting to the word Unique, then I am agreeing and reiterating that point, prompted by rather than answering your rhetorical question.
Like you, I can't believe anybody is saying 'We know what caused it, and it can't happen again, so there's no need to publish it.' They wouldn't dare. My take on the silence so far is the investigators - a collective name for members of the AAIB, Boeing, RR, possibly other regulatory bodies and probably several component suppliers - still don't
know what happened, so I presume they are still speculating (testing hypotheses). And none of this speculation has resulted in a convincing causal sequence they can publish - yet.
I can see three possible outcomes. The worst outcome is we don't know what happened. The best is we know what happened and we can stop it happening (at least in that way) on future flights. In the middle is we know what happened and the only way we know of stopping it happening again is to not fly.
As somebody said a long time ago, the final report is the one to read.
Sorry again. Please let me plead oversensitivity, caused by excessive exposure to spin and hyperbole.