Originally Posted by lederhosen
Clandestino I am seriously confused about what you are trying to say and what it has to do with the original thread. Are you saying AirRabbit does not understand aerodynamics and is telling old wive's tales?
I’m also confused about what
Clandestino is saying. But, if I'm interpreting it correctly, I differ with his opinion that my post is an “alternate history,” providing a “verbally magic” rendition of the “real” history as contained in the NTSB report. I agree that everything in the NTSB report is based on fact but is not necessarily factual. Unfortunately, the analysis of those facts is, at best, incomplete – and in some cases, the facts presented are either dismissed or overlooked in the development of the final position … and in other instances, facts or statements from witnesses were omitted from the report.
Just one example (and there are others): in the report, on page 9, there is “grainy” photo of the accident airplane at the gate prior to departure. This photo was reportedly taken between 15:19 and 15:24, by a passenger on an arriving flight that was holding for gate space near the accident airplane. The photo shows snow accumulated on the top and right side of the fuselage. This photo was used to present the case that the airplane had accumulated snow or ice prior to departing the gate, further condemning the flight crew for taking off under such conditions. However, in the referenced photo, the forward cargo door (below the windows) is clearly open and baggage carts and a catering van are positioned adjacent to that open cargo door. Statements acquired of the crew that actually deiced the airplane indicated that they accomplished the deicing after all baggage had been loaded and the airplane had been catered and that after the deicing, no additional baggage was loaded and no additional catering was completed. These statements did not make it into the report. Why? It’s only my opinion, but, if someone wanted to provide evidence that the airplane was “covered with ice and snow,” the photo certainly validates this truth. However, if the photo was taken prior to the deicing process – that piece of evidence no longer contains valid information relative to the condition of the airplane when it left the gate, and therefore becomes meaningless. The timing of the photo was an estimate provided to the investigators by the passenger who took the photo from the window of a flight inbound to the gate.
Anyone reading the CVR transcript can see that it starts at 15:30 – meaning that 15:30 would be
after the passengers and crew had boarded the airplane;
after all the all the commotion that accompanies boarding the airplane;
after the flight crew had competed their cockpit checks;
after the engines had been started the first time;
after the first aborted attempt to push back;
after the second aborted attempt to push back;
after the engines had been shut down; and
after the call for another, larger tug to push back. In fact, at 15:34 the Captain is noted as saying “Here comes the chain tractor” (meaning the tug with chains on the tires to facilitate the push-back process). Again, look at the photo. Could the baggage have been loaded, the catering completed, and then the deicing/anti-icing process completed on the entire airplane (whether or not the mixture was adequate to do the job intended), for all of the above to have taken place, including the accumulation of ice and snow indicated in the photo – and have that all accomplished in 6 - 12 minutes? Give me a break!
Conclusion: The photo provided visual confirmation of the facts only if interpreted in one way. The statements provided by the deicing crew would have conflicted with this interpretation of facts. However, by relying on this photo and disregarding the statements made by the deicing crew, one would have to conclude that what is seen in the photo is not the baggage door open and there are no baggage carts or a catering vehicle at the airplane visible in the photo;
OR that catering and baggage loading occurred
after the deicing process was completed. Also, one would have to presume that the photo was taken sufficiently long enough after the deicing was completed to have had that kind of accumulation occur, and that all of the above cited events would have had to have taken place in the 6 to 12 minutes between when the photo was taken and the CVR transcript beginning. Does that make sense to you? Not in my book! The only logical conclusion that can be made is that the photo was, indeed, taken by a passenger on an arriving flight – but it was taken much earlier than described – well before the deicing / anti-icing process was conducted. So why include it? I think the answer is obvious.