4 ms·
It’s an armchair analyst injecting their pet peeves into an otherwise narrated report of what the NTSB found. It’s disingenuous to do a publication the final r
by kortilla 3y ago
It’s an armchair analyst injecting their pet peeves into an otherwise narrated report of what the NTSB found.
It’s disingenuous to do a publication the final report and cause of a crash and blend in your own views without big disclaimers that they aren’t supported.
It’s no different than the author focusing on the ethnicity or religion of the pilots or even the phases of the moon and planets. There is what the NTSB said, and what the author pulled out of his ass. They are unfortunately blended together and pretty severely conflict in this case.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago[flagged]
- kortilla 3y agoHim, the topic here is aviation safety and this particular incident. I didn’t add any analysis of the cause of the incident. The author made conclusions up whole cloth.
- spuz 3y agoIt does seem to me that the author has injected their own theory of the state of mind of the crew, but in what way does this theory conflict with the NTSB's account? I agree that if there was evidence that the state of mind of the crew was a significant factor in the cause of the accident that they would have mentioned it, but this simply means they did not find sufficient evidence for this theory, not that the theory is incorrect.