Sunfish:
To put it another way, everyone examines things through the lens of their own experience
I recall a similar post previously regarding the speculation around BA38. Perhaps it was you? I resisted the temptation to comment on that occasion, but as it's been raised again, here goes ...
What you say is right, but would you prefer it if the Mechanical Engineer started spouting about fuel chemistry?
Sunfish:
The trouble is that while I'm sure the speculation is well meaning in most cases, very little of that experience has anything much to do with commercial aviation.
You see, unless the poster has experience of commercial aviation, you seem to infer that their contribution is of less value - ie you are asking them to stick to their field!
As I see it, it's entirely sensible that those with experience of other fields make a contribution, even if they don't have experience of commercial aviation. A link pin is a link pin, chemistry is chemistry, software has bugs
- aviation is another field, but it doesn't change the laws of the universe. If those with commercial aviation experience - who I'm sure are for the most part intellegent enough to understand the suggestion from other fields being put forward - can "through the lens of their own experience" spot a flaw in a posted suggestion, they should raise it to rebuf the argument and the poster should accept that. Unless they have a counter argument of course, that's how a debate works isn't it ?
Whilst there have been some truly terrible posts on this and other threads despite the moderators considerable efforts, I also see a lot of people being shot down when they make a suggestion, with the responder (who often has a valid point, but agressively made) seeming to have implied that the poster is saying "I categorically state this is what is happened" when in all but a few cases they haven't.
If only commercial aviator's opinions are of value, then make the forum closed or read-only. For my part I think the mix of interested engineers from many disciplines is a real strength of PPrune, albeit that there is a problem due to it being used by Journos - who don't understand engineering uncertainty - as gospel fact for a sensationalist headline.
I'd rather wait for the experienced folk at AAIB and Boeing to tell all of us what they believe the probable cause is
That's been posted many times too. I read every one of the first 1000 or so posts on this subject, but drifted away from the thread when useful additions dried up (interesting diagrams of the fuel system were still being added until quite recently). As you see I pop back from time to time. But this is the thread for people wanting to speculate, postulate and question, so if you just want to wait for the AAIB report, surely it's best to "move along, nothing to see here ..."
because as an engineer who first was responsible for an oil terminal and airport jet fuel handling facility, then spent six years with an airline engineering division, followed by an aerospace/defence outfit, and flies little tiny aircraft, I'm buggered if I know what happened.
Yup, as an CEng MIET in Electronic Engineering and a software professional, I'm similarly buggered (though that's probably as expected because as you say I don't have professional experience of commerical aviation)
, and am keen to see the AAIB report.
But let's not stop some of the current issues with the use of PPrune kill one of it's greatest strengths, namely the excellent experience of interested individuals across multiple engineering fields.
Just need to find a way to make them float to the top amongst the youngsters, innexperienced but wannabe engineers, and Journos trying to provoke a headline.
