Originally Posted by
Jenbel
^^^^^^
I'm glad he was able to get so much from an image of a tailfin, where the rupture zone couldn't even be seen clearly.
He's got a preconceived idea (it was a rudder failure, because of the AA A330 accident) and now he's looking for evidence to fit that idea.
That's precisely the wrong way to go about it. Even he says that the reason for the crash is unknown - and then goes on to fit some bits of evidence (based on nothing but a photograph
) into his preconceived idea.
First, the AA aircraft was an A300-600R, not an A330.
Second, what he is really argiung for are tougher regulations for vertical stabilizer strength. He admits that he is speculating as to any role this may have played in the crash.
If it's established that the pilots were in any way at fault over this, I hope he publishes a column apologising for blackening their names, possibly needlessly.
If the pilots caused the crash, why would he need to apologize.
He isn't actually faulting the pilots, but rather the aircraft design.