Dantruck, Hilico
In the interests of clarity, let's see if this can be explained this at a level suitable for the average non expert reader.
"On an airliner, you have two (at least) of anything important.
That includes ADIs (Attitude Direction Indicators), important instrument used to control the aircraft. False indications from an ADI are potentially very dangerous.'
This risk is well understood and to reduce it, each pilot has an ADI on the panel in front of them and there is a third standby unit too.
If the pilots ADIs have different readings, they should cross check both against the standby and then fly safely using the two instruments that agree."
Now, if I (a non expert, non journo) can explain this concept in 86 words, then is it not reasonable to expect a professional journalist to be able to undertake some brief research and produce a piece of integrity, which is interesting, well written and concise and rather more lucid than
Plane crashed after maintenance blunder
which is as equally accurate as saying
Plane crashed after take off into bad weather
or
Plane crashed with uranium on board
Plane crashed after taking off with inflammable substance on board
(excuse this last one, but fuel is an inflammable substance ;-))
Whilst a journalist may be safe from libel action with these wordings, a reasonable person would 'read between the lines.'
So what I really object to about the reporting in this instance is that the simplistic conclusion implies a very nice neat conclusion, which is wrong.