GAC06 said:
1990AG said:
The original wording was the plane went into a steep dive "because of column input". That's like saying "the car swerved because of steering wheel input", which implies it was initiated by the pilot.
They edited it and changed it to "as a result of nose down elevator deflection". That's like saying "the car swerved because the front wheels turned". It's more vague and leaves open other possibilities besides an intentional input, like mechanical or flight control failure.
This resonates with me somewhat.
Someone published this status report / update to get the information out there.
However, a close reading of what what was said, and the way it was said, certainly allows the reader to draw a conclusion.
At some point (soon after the report was published) the drafters probably got a ton of phone calls and emails asking them to confirm or deny what we've been speculating about since day 1. Did pilot action crash the plane or not? (Whether intentional or accidental)
In my mind, the secenario leads me to believe one of a few things,
1. It was just an oversight by the folks who drafted the report and unintentionally conclusory.
2. The oringinal report was accurate and they had evidence to support the idea that the crash was caused by the pilot, (whether intentional or accidental) but they were not in a position to absorb the ****-storm that would follow from that conclusion, or simply weren't ready to 'go there' for whatever reason.
If the black box tells us that the plane dived because the pilot manipulated the stick to put the plane into a dive, then what circumstances would have to exist for that not to have been the case?
That's where my completely uninformed and untrained mind is at at this point,