Originally Posted by
megan
The CAB got it right, and you're barking up a tree I'm afraid.
The CAB said the plane slid right side up and tail first. The plane was upside down and tail first. The CAB got it wrong. Simple as that. Your steadfast refusal to confront that fact tells me much. The questions then are: What else did they get wrong? How did the plane get into that position? How much of what the CAB said do we have to discard before the remainder makes sense?
Orientation of the aircraft at initial impact is obvious, but it doen't fit with your object of making your Father a hero by nearly pulling off a forced landing narrative.
My object is to find out what happened. My dad is my hero regardless what this accident turns out to be. That's pretty normal, actually. He was a terrific guy. The drive-by psychoanalysis is typical and boring, but I understand it and am not offended. It's a pity that the instant psychoanalysis often cuts off thinking about the actual issues. I'm willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your snap judgment makes that impossible for you to do.
All my previous posts deleted, and this is the last.
That's unfortunate.
You've contributed two substantive ideas. First, that the bank angle would have left a mark on the wing when it hit the power line and that the power line breaks if measured would also tell the angle. Neither is mentioned in the reports, and your conjecture doesn't make them evidence. Second, you said the wingtip would have left a mark in the embankment. Since the image quality is too poor to make it out, we don't know what that mark was.
Beyond that, you object to this project because I'm not a licensed crash investigator, which is quite true. My most intense familiarity with big planes comes from paying part of my college by polishing the bellies of NWA jets. This put me on intimate terms with the underside of an airplane, which is probably why I could detect that the plane was upside down, a factoid that eluded the professionally trained CAB investigators.
You also objected because the people who wrote the report are no longer here to defend it. Presumably this would forbid the study of history as a whole, and I dismiss that objection entirely.
You're my favorite contributor. You've hated this project from the start, and if anyone was going to find flaws in it that person would be you. You've never posted anything here that I wasn't pleased to see.
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." Winston Churchill