As expected, you have simply trotted out your same old stuff and completely ignored what I have tried to explain to about why members here have kept on telling you the same things about your post for the last two years at least.
Originally Posted by Pitts
what part of my post number 803 was so offensive or seen as trolling or assuming anything
Nothing. I didn’t say ‘offensive’, no one called you a troll. Read my post properly.
Originally Posted by Pitts
I'm not sure why you take questions to be statements of fact
I don't. I and others have made it perfectly clear that it is the intent of your questions and the relevance you appear to attach to the issues involved. Read my post properly.
Originally Posted by Pitts
there are some items to be questioned now and actually they could have been in the bulletin that was published but for some reason were not
An interim bulletin will only ever discuss facts that have been established so far. They do not speculate on anything else, nor will they list all the aspects of the crash that they are going to investigate. I agree that there are technical, physiological and established events to discuss. Read my post properly.
Originally Posted by Pitts
To say we can't learn anything until a full AAIB report comes out is I think inaccurate
We can. But lots of people have warned you off speculating about error, blame and failings at this stage. Read posts from members replying to you over the past two years properly.
To help you read my points, here is a precis.
- you seem to pop up with the same loaded questions and expert opinion on every accident-related thread in the entire site - helos, fast jets, light aircraft and airliners. And every time people tell you the same thing about trying to draw your own conclusions with only a fraction of the necessary
- you fail to understand why people are telling you that speculating about the causes of accidents with so little evidence is very likely to lead you to the wrong conclusions.
- You also seem to ignore what people tell you about carelessly implying some sort of pilot error - or, at least, asking inappropriate questions in a manner that suggests that is where your interest lies.
- There is a world of difference between discussing technical, physiological and established events and speculating about what errors the pilot made.
- especially as the pilots here have no idea of your professional interest in it or why you think you are qualified to draw an expert opinion
- We do get armchair experts, unscrupulous journos (as well as some welcome, open, bona fide ones) and trolls here.
- what people are saying to you here is stay away from speculation about fault, blame, error, judgement and competency until there is evidence to indicate that any of those are relevant factors.