Chainsaw, I believe GADRIVR's frustration with Brian was caused by his response to my statement that;
You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW
to which Brian responded;
Bollocks. Please PM a reference to where anyone has.
So let me just take the first line in Brian's original assertion that I quoted earlier where Brian says;
2. No mayday or other communication was given regarding a possible ditching ergo ditching was unintentional ergo CFIT
Lets first define the word "ergo". My thesaurus says it means;
ergo [ˈɜːgəʊ]
sentence connector therefore; hence[from Latin: therefore]
Adv.1.ergo - (used as a sentence connector) therefore or consequently.
The first part of the quoted sentence is used to ascertain that there was no mayday or other communication given. Based on the absence of a radio call, Brian then draws the consequence that the ditching was unintentional, ie he purports to KNOW that we are dealing with a CFIT.
Whilst there might be some merit in saying that there is a
possibility that the absence of a Mayday call could be because the flight crew had unintentionally impacted water, there are literally dozens of OTHER, some would claim equally plausible explanations why a radio call was not forthcoming?
You only need to tune in 121.5 for a few hours flight to hear the "guard police" jumping all over some poor hapless soul that had intended to talk to his company and accidentally had the wrong frequency tuned, so is it not possible that perhaps they in the heat of the moment had managed to tune the wrong frequency? Is that not a plausible explanation for the missing Mayday call?
Also, show me a pilot who claims to never have accidentally omitted a Mayday call while wiping his sweaty hands hanging on for his dear life to the controls whilst practicing emergencies in the simulator, and I'll show you a person who deal with the truth lightly.
Or perhaps the radio could be U/S, or the microphone selector pushed to some other radio, or a complete or partial electrical failure and the list goes just goes on and on.
My point remains that we must not claim to KNOW, when we at this stage only have circumstantial evidence to build a case.
It doesn't take much imagination to picture the level of tension, nerves and apprehension present in the cockpit after a few go-arounds in the pea soup on a dark and stormy night at Norfolk, as the options are being narrowed down with diminishing fuel reserves - exactly to what level they had reduced, will no doubt be established as the FACTS are being established by the organization tasked with investigating this incident.
Brian, again with respect - I just believe that we would be well advised to take a step back with the speculation. The Internet is NOT a hotel-bar, where you can judge your audience based on how well you know them or how many beers they buy you. An opinion voiced in a public forum is instantly ALL OVER THE INTERNET, to anyone interested in the matter at hand and the clueless journos in this country get most of their so-called "expert advise" from places like PPRUNE, so your speculations goes instantly MUCH further that you had possibly intended.
Cheers guys - I'm off to work too.....