The original thread on this accident appeared to have richly detailed and substantive content. More than that, a number of participants in the original Th were highly interactive - swapping back and forth with computer-based profiles, and analysis, of topography, visual profiles, and other evidently pertinent information. So also did that original Th discourse over an evidently broad range of approach flying techniques, and instrumentation and automation factors.
Question: based on what you have seen with respect to the NTSB investigatory process to date, including but not limited to the hearing yesterday, what confidence level do you hold as to whether the Board is looking at all that is relevant here, and all that may reasonably be relevant, and further that Board is understanding same? (No need to remind us that this is, of course, what NTSB is "supposed" to do.) Relatedly, should the public take any disheartening from broadcast pronouncements by former DOT Inspector General Mary S. which appear to state conclusions despite the obvious on-going nature of the Board's process?
Oh and I can't let my 'rep for colorful and/or obscure comments become languid. Therefore: head shots done of the FO have as much relevance to this Thread, the original Th, and the accident investigation, as a hot dog has relevance to a warm puppy.
