Dear BEagle (and Mike Jenvey)
Well, firstly, I’m glad you’ve made it clear you were referring to something other than the link that began this thread. I have not seen the TV report to which you refer so I cannot comment further. If your description of it is accurate I would agree, at least in part, that it was wrong. Your references to gutter journalism, etc, are still misplaced and arguably unfair, however.
If you are going to go off message, by which I mean refer to something other than the source referenced by he who started this thread, perhaps you will make that plain in future.
You said:
“Notwithstanding the link, to the average person the BBC report blamed the crash on a maintenance error. That was not the primary cause, as the full AAIB report makes abundantly clear.”
…And Mike Jenvey added:
“…the “faulty” ADI was run through a full test sequence by the ground engineer (including removing the instrument from the instrument panel)? He also spotted a wiring pin that needed to be reseated – this was done. The Korean Air engineer (also present), then said something to the effect that he was satisfied & required no further assistance.
“How on earth can that be a maintenance blunder??
Can’t you see that to the average person this tragedy is/was maintenance related? Mike Jenvey, you yourself quote a section that refers to the goings-on of two 'engineers' to make your point. The man on the Clapham Omnibus has not the wit nor will to dissect your primary, secondary or any other cause. That’s why they need journalists who, best as they can, must turn multiple pages of deeply complex techno analysis into simple English. On that boiled down basis it was quite correct to point to a ‘maintenance’ error.
Otherwise, according to your analysis, an equally accurate headline would have been ‘pilot’ error. You see my point..?
We’re descending into semantics here somewhat, so please don’t take offence to my remarks. More I hope you understand we all need journalists, even if they do get it wrong sometimes. It helps no one to bang on about “outrageous and irresponsible” reporting in the way you have. Even taking the TV report you belatedly refer to: ‘outrageous’ ?…possibly. ‘Irresponsible ?…no. No one will be damaged by the inaccuracy you claim. Those in the know, know, afteral.
Apologies to anyone bored by this aside to the thread.
Dan Coughlan