Originally Posted by
Small cog
Very telling.
Originally Posted by
cats_five
If you get 'it' wrong - or partly wrong - how can anything meaningful be drawn from 'it'? How will we know if you got 'it' wrong until the official report is published?
Originally Posted by
alemaobaiano
Your analysis would be tainted by the official investigation?
Given the nature of the internet I suspect it would be other way round, especially as official reports tend to take 12-18 months. The amount of information, correct or not, that you are presenting would become the received version and any divergences from the official report would be seen as a cover up by those who lack the patience to wait for the official release.
I have stated my prime interest is to use ADS-B data as a tool for air-safety investigation. My interest is solely to piece together what happened to the airplane.
MS804 data stopped suddenly, but helped locate the recorders, which is always the primary goal. The media was incensed that we had yet another accident over water and did not know what happened. We got an ELT burst on impact, too. I appealed that we were following the script, that the onboard recorders were the goal for the investigation. But MH370 haunts us in the public eye. GADSS 2021 (autonomous) is still in work, and I think ADS-B would be better than ELT, especially if we can augment the data set. The goal of GADSS is location, but I am trying to work in rudimentary investigation tools.
In EK521, I could see that it floated and let speed bleed off and finally crashed to the runway. It was apparent thrust had not been added in a timely manner.
In the Pence overrun, it was clear the airplane landed long.
The American engine failure did not have any interesting ADS-B aspect.
The FedEx FLL was on my list, but got overtaken by Lamia.
Having examined a lot of data throughout my career, I have found that it is far easier connect the dots when you know what happened.
My challenge is to figure out what happened with the limited data set in hand. As more and more factual information becomes known, I can go back and say that the data showed any new supposition. It is far easier to solve the problem when you know the answer. So I did not mean that the information would be tainted in any way, but that my experiment of using the data as a tool would be.
I have never suggested that my blog be a substitute for the official investigation. I expect the official investigation will reveal information that is not consistent with my analysis. I will be watching closely and will come to grips with it at the time.
I have no interest in blame. Or why a decision was made other than assuming best intent. I am interested in what happened to the airplane. Unfortunately, that takes context. So the sphere of interest expands and touches the soft parts of the equation.
Did Lamia suffer fuel starvation or exhaustion. Exhaustion is a matter that can be fairly easily assessed assuming full tanks. Starvation opens up a whole universe of possibilities. If exhaustion matches the data, then it becomes the path of least resistance. There are scenarios that could lead to starvation, and the flight recorders will open that case clearly. As well as exhaustion. In the end, there is nothing in the ADS-B data that could distinguish them.
What I am learning is that if I park an assumption in piecing the data and drilling down to understand it, that the community gets upset that I am not considering other possibilities. I will try to do a better job explaining this in the blog. I am not trying to rule out anything, so please forgive any misunderstanding.