Posts by user "za9ra22" [Posts: 88 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 5]

Except for three things at least:
Firstly, there is more probability or surviving, or evidence of your suicide doing so at least.
Secondly, it appears not to have worked in this case anyway - rather predictably.
Thirdly, we don't really know with certainty how many suicides from altitude there may have been, in as far as there are crashes or disappearances still unaccounted.

First, apologies for snipping almost all your post - it's not that I disagree with a word, but that we seem decreasingly able to read and properly digest what gets posted here, so I'd rather people read your actual post than my quote of it.

Secondly, even outside the question of legal definitions and legal liability, I've become increasingly concerned with the use of some terminology which doesn't just ascribe motives, but goes far enough to personally accuse a dead professional of many years standing, on the basis of no factual evidence so much as a wish to point the finger.

It's also rather ironic to participate in a Professional Pilot forum where non-pilots are criticised for their lack of knowledge and experience, then witness (presumed and apparent) professional pilots discussing human psychology and behavioural science as if they've been studying it all their lives.

I hope the mods can work out a framework by which this can be discussed without infringing on human decency and professionalism, but I can't see much sign without it that pprune would be a suitable place to further discuss the issues involved. The ad hoc editing done so far really isn't enough, despite the tough job they're doing.

Really?! I mean, REALLY?!

I had no problem getting access via that link from here (in the US).

Despite promising 'new details' the article tells us what we already knew: That the FO was flying, the captain monitoring; thus almost certainly the one who operated the switches. It says nothing else of any value, except that it misquotes the report, so can't exactly be trusted to accurately quote other sources too.

It tells us about the two pilots, but reveals no useful background, it also tells us that Air India's chief executive has said not to jump to conclusions and that the investigation is far from over.

It's a masterpiece of space-filling journalism mentioning sources and 'US officials' not disclosed as connected to the accident or investigation and therefore likely to actually know anything, just voicing opinions.

No, I mean exactly what it was I said. Not a thing more, nor less.

Which was, to freshen your mind: " I suspect it is written as it is because at this point, there is no evidence the investigation can provide as to how the switches 'transitioned', let alone why."

That's the article, yes. And no I don't think it tells us anything useful we didn't already know. It does quote 'these people' as saying the FO expressed 'surprise and then 'panicked', which in the first instance would hardly be a shock and in the second is a matter of interpretation. And the supposition that the captain remained calm is a judgement, not a fact, but in line with the captain's reported history of personal interactions.

Inferring meaning into this doesn't actually give it a genuine meaning. And it isn't as if we didn't already know which was actually flying the aircraft and therefore which was operating switches.

What will be new is when the investigation moves from fact gathering to reporting comprehensive findings. I'm not convinced they'll do that via the WSJ, and I must say their rehash of what is known in the guise of new news doesn't do them credit.

To add: You may think all I am doing is defending the indefensible in terms of culpability in this accident, but actually all I am doing is looking at evidence rather than commentary. If the WSJ have evidence via someone leaking the work of the investigation, they should at this stage be ashamed of themselves for undermining the process intended to best provide for airline and passenger safety.

Of course you're right, and it's a bit too easy to think the media is a modern problem in this situation when it really isn't - though it is getting much worse. And I am aggravated by it because in the investigation of a rail accident years ago, we found a reporter in the wreckage field having stolen a visivest and clipboard, walking around taking photos and making notes of conversations he had lingered close enough to to hear.

As he said when handed over to the police, he was 'just doing his job'. It made ours a lot harder when his newspaper published some of those conversations as 'fact', and specifically pointed the finger at a worker who was not actually involved at all, and had only been discussed as a person who may have seen the state of the signal before the train passed through it.

The media don't look for facts, they look for stories that sell newspapers and newspaper advertising. Not a job I'd want to be caught doing!

Well, the US investigators are actually part of the investigation team as a whole, so they'll have access to just about everything. This early in the process, while the whole investigation is still coming together and into focus, the team leader can't really know what doesn't need sharing around the team as a whole, so everyone is typically in the loop. All team members are required to maintain confidentiality of course.

Exceptions to confidentiality are not untypically 'home' country investigation boards, so AAIB members may feed back to AAIB seniors, NTSB to the NTSB chairperson for example, but it's really rare for it go further. Reporters on the other hand want to get paid, and that means selling stories.

So yes, I think we do know.