I'd like to remind you that just because something is released and/or stated by the NTSB / Government, does not necessarily make it FACT. People ARE allowed to draw their own informed, researched opinions. This is not "speculating" or doing the perished a disservice (as the media pushes), it is making educated guesses. We are learning. That is WE. Meaning everyone. Not just the NTSB/FAA/GOV. I know enough about aircraft icing to understand it in a limited sense. I know enough about aircraft behavior and some failures to simulate in my own mind probability. You can go through the list and probably narrow it down to something common ie; failure, icing, etc. I don't believe so many accidents should be chalked-up to "spatial disorientation." I think that's an easy way to say "general problem with the piloting." And write it off.
Absolutely, but what I responded to was not an informed, researched opinion, there was no support given to substantiate an educated guess of any kind. As Peter pointed out, those that have the real facts are unfortunately deceased in this particular tragedy. Pilots learn from others' mistakes. Reading and learning from crucial errors in NTSB reports, both preliminary and factual, aids in promoting flight safety and preventing accidents. That is how "WE" learn and continue to fly safely, not by ignoring the NTSB or FAA, and is why many professional training corporations (airlines included) use accidents and associated NTSB reports in initial, recurrent, and IOE training.
If you are naive enough to actually believe that NTSB/FAA gospel is 100% rightful, truthful, fact, then this does not pertain to you. Nevermind. But if you have an independant and research based method of dealing with things (especially pertaining to complex situations) such as air disasters, then you'll get what I'm saying and not be offended. It's not my intention to offend. But rather open up more discussion.
Aviation accidents are increasingly complex and difficult to conclude definitively. No where did I point out that everything the NTSB or FAA concludes is 100% accurate. Often, the only facts left from an accident are recorded and published by the NTSB rather than the speculative public.
I understand what you are saying my friend. But I just wanted to say that we should at least be able to discuss freely (as in American as Apple pie Freedom-of-speech) possibilities. You are right, if you know nothing, dont speculate. But that affirmation of the NTSB's investigative qualities just kills me. I've seen them over the last 20 years time and time again, screw things up. Sometimes they generalize due to the fact they cannot pinpoint specific problems and failures. We cant read dead minds. We can barely even reconstruct flight data of major airliners. With redundant data systems.
Perhaps my professional relationship with a number of NTSB accident investigators has given me a greater, more optimistic perspective on the agency. Nothing found in aviation accidents is taken for it's whole value, there are always questionable facts and other fragments of evidence that leave the most complex tragedies a mystery. However, it's important that we learn to avoid the mistakes identified in accidents investigated by the NTSB, whether they exist in the body of a report or require inference or extrapolation to recognize and educate.
I don't think your post was meant to undermine or discredit the agencies mentioned, but I find it extremely important to use them in a collaborative manner to enhance our safety in the skies.