Can we please give the silly "it's just speculation" cliche a rest? Of course it is speculation. The NTSB experts (or at least, their equivalent) are doing the

Can we please give the silly "it's just speculation" cliche a rest? Of course it is speculation. The NTSB experts (or at least, their equivalent) are doing the same thing at this point. I guarantee that the way root causes for aviation accidents are established is exactly via speculation (aka hypothesis), followed by rigorous testing of that speculation where possible. Peter Garrison is well-known in the aviation community and may well be considered an expert on flight safety. He is a pilot with thousands of hours of flight time. He designed and built several airplanes himself, and for decades has written Flying's "Aftermath" section, which takes a hard look at general aviation's accidents. Should Feynman have avoided "speculating" when he compressed an O-ring in ice water on television during the Challenger safety board inquiry, when NASA and the Rogers' board were plodding along? Or did it help lead to a rigorous and open inquiry?