Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyman
According to the traces of THS in IR#3, it was parked for 43 seconds. How is a graph different due language in the accompanying text?
HazelNuts reports:
In IR#3, look on page 42 of the english version or page 44 of the french version. That graph was erroneously included as Figure 64 in the english version of the final report, the intended graph can be downloaded separately from the BEA site.
Erroneously included? Or Erroneous?
What does the new graph depict? The reason I ask, is there have been several
Items, removed and replaced, prior, and I tend to go with the original information, unless there is a written and authenticated correction.
For instance, in the original thread on the "ARM 36 G" the included image showed no damage to the end of the strut, it was completely different from what the text of the explanation offered. With the final report, a different image is provided, one with "damage" that more closely matched the text offered from the beginning. Moreover, that image changed in the course of time, to include "better" resolution of the damaged area, whilst the rest of the "photo" was unchanged.
I do not wish to imply any thing at all, but I'll cite the original, when I can.
Rgds.