Originally Posted by prestonh

thanks. what conclusions in the OP article were jumped to? I asked specifically for what was sensational in the OP article which you then deflected into something else, a strawman argument against knowledge of behind the scenes processes which may serve against transparency and public confidence, particularly when UA's response included general statements such as:

it turns out from the NTSB investigation that the PIC had 100 hours in command in this type and co pilot had 120 hours in this type (imo very new). why would UA not answer that question? seems to sweep that question under the rug?


which is interesting as UA ended up providing data which showed items like:


there was also pilot statements which UA declined to provide:



This suggests a breakdown in CRM. that is not good in a loss of control situation.

and the FAA was quoted:
“The agency reviewed the incident and took appropriate action” without elaborating. At least the NTSB review disclosed to the public the facts.

As such, with the NTSB review, it was discovered that the crew lost control of the aircraft, nearly CFIT relatively low time in type pilots, due to a disputed call for flaps 5 by the PIC. the investigation also revealed the pilot statements, plane data, adsb data, weather data, that is a lot more information than the behind the scenes info you point to prior to the NTSB investigation that came after the media attention. the public has a right to know if they are safe in traveling and the NTSB has a broad safety mandate to investigate as such. I disagree this was sensational. a plane full of pax seconds from ending up in the ocean after the crew lost control deserves scrutiny.