terpster,
it is likely we are not going to agree on the Cali analysis, but at least we could agree on what the criteria for a proper causal analysis are, and hammer out the differences.
Originally Posted by aterpster
That Texas jury was hoodwinked by deep-pocket-seeking plaintiffs' litigators.
Further, the NTSB has less than a sterling record of objective and competent analysis. And, Cali was not their investigation in any case.
My throat is sore from saying it over and over. :
That is all ad hominem stuff.
Further, I refute your suggestion that the people I know at the NTSB who were involved with that analysis are neither competent nor objective. The mystery of the left turn was solved by the NTSB investigator who found the non-volatile FMC memory amongst the rubble (that is the same guy who solved the TWA800 case, BTW. Just to have those two on the resume is a good lifetime's work, in my opinion). The human factors work was undertaken by the same investigator who introduced the questions about biorhythms and alertness physiology for the very first time in any accident investigation into the 1985 China Air Lines upset over the Pacific, which I regard as a milestone in accident investigation.
However, we both know that that ad hominem commentary is not your real argument. You real argument is more careful. Our argument is contained in the paper I referenced.
BTW, the conclusions to which the NTSB came are not necessarily the same conclusions to which the Colombian investigators came; as you say, it was Colombia's show. And citing the list of causes as listed in the accident report neglects the unfortunately pervasive fact that the causal reasoning in most accident reports is nowhere near rigorous (read: there are mistakes in that reasoning in at least half of the reports we have analysed). You are not arguing with the report when you are arguing with me: you are arguing with our work, not theirs.
You have a list of causal factors which make your throat sore
I do not disagree that those were causal factors. What I would like to know is what criteria you are using to rule out the other demonstrable causal factors. You are picking and choosing and I want to know how and why.
Further, I want to know what exactly is wrong with the causal analysis we presented a decade and a half ago in that paper. I don't see any mistakes in it. If you can't find mistakes in it, they you haven't refuted it adequately just by saying you disagree.
PBL