PJ2 quote:
I would not want to criticize theories if they are developing and/or promising, but if someone believes something strongly, in this context there is the requirement for substantiation.
PJ2, I appreciate your desire to be dispassionate and even-handed. I thought long and hard before deciding to criticize the "Loss of VS at altitude as a causal factor" approach to this accident. I don't see this line of thought as developing anymore, it only operates in a 'restatement' mode in my view. The same old concepts are paraded out and restated. More jello nailed to the wall.
Determining that the VS was attached at impact takes the examination of this accident in one direction, and assuming the VS was lost at altitude takes it in another. That is why it has been a constant source of discussion between contributors.
So true. But if one of these branches can be effectively discounted, then attention can go to the other branch. New thoughts can be developed.
Too often we look at things in terms of what we already know. Pilots look at questions of how could the crew have done things differently or how the airline may have put the crew in a box? Systems Engineers look at things like how the types of systems they have worked on in the past can cause such an accident? Maintenance 'Engineers' look at how particular types of systems they have had problems with might have contributed to this accident? We all have our unique viewpoints. Only when knowledge from new disciplines is added do we seem to find new corners of the AF447 puzzle.
If the problems with the VS-loss theory were addressed such that the evidence of the recovered wreckage and the photographs were accounted for, I don't think anyone would resist the notion.
However, a number of contributors have provided sufficient opportunity to demonstrate the validity of the theory against specific objections, and have found no response.
As I stated yesterday;
Loss of the VS in-flight is probably the most discussed concept in this thread.
This single-mindedness is not an asset and detracts from other explorations.
I for one have delayed opening up new areas for discussions because there was an active discussion going on about how the VS might have been lost. I strongly suspect others are in this same boat.
BEA may be an agency of the French government and as such can receive political "direction" from on high, but they have their own credibility to preserve.
Their reports on the accident have been conservative, and only very recently has there been significant evidence that some of their early conclusions will have to be re-thought and corrected. (Accident location actually near LKP and possibly, the significance of ADR related ACARS messages). Their statements regarding the VS condition and their conclusions regarding how the VS came off the aircraft have not yet been disproved despite many attempts to do so and several attempts to besmirch the BEA's reputation.
If one of the proponents of the 'VS was lost at altitude' concept will provide a
succinct, bulleted summary, of their points, then I am sure that the other viewpoint holders (VS was lost at impact) will have no trouble discussing them appropriately.
The problem has been that too often, the points have not been stated succinctly and instead are stated in general terms along with a variety of irrelevant cat and dog subjects. This causes many of us to tune this part of the discussion out.
VS was off at altitude proponents, please conspire among yourselves and pick a spokesperson or team to present your key points.