Originally posted by Vinco
As I said before; I think terrorism is a very improbable, but so far I see nothing that rules it out.
As I said before; I think we should stay objective, I don't think we should prematurely eliminate other possibilities even though they are unlikely.
As far as speculation. Speculation is our intent. At this point any probable cause is speculative. Often even conclusions are somewhat speculative. Many of us like to speculate before all the evidence and findings are available; so we can see how good our speculation is and to try to keep sharp and learn.
Some of us want to make sure that people remain objective. It's like before 9/11 most people were not objective about airline terrorism; because they assumed the terrorist would continue their MO as they have before. Regrettably we had a policy of limited cooperation with airline hijackers, that prejudice policy burned us on 9/11 because we were not objective and our policies were based on stereotypes.
Like I said before I think we should follow the evidence instead of prematurely ruling out possibilities.
As I've said before, I think the most likely cause is some sort of electromechanical fault (ranging from electronics, wiring, fuel pumps, fuel control/management to software issues).
I think the next most likely is something like a fuel quality problem, such as water, fuel icing, fuel foaming, fuel jelling or other contaminants.
In addition I think we should keep in the back of our mind that there are other more remote possibilities or contributing factors. Such as RF interference or sabotage/terrorism.
A good crash investigator should focus most of their attention on the most probable, however they should remain objective and consider (keep an open mind to) the improbable. Instead of ruling out possible causes. Investigators should follow the evidence.
A cause is not always known, often the finding is the most probable cause. That doesn't always mean there isn't a shadow of doubt that there was something else.
Like I said before if a problem is found, we then have to determine why. If something is found to be a maintenance issue, we have to look more deeply into why it was a maintenance issue. Was it from counterfeit parts? Was shortcuts taken, because of, laziness, cheapness to expedite and or keep costs down, or was it sabotage?
Sometimes it all comes down to motive and intent. If someone forgets a step, that could be considered an accident. If someone cut corners, that can be considered criminal (an accident in the making). Sabotage (deliberate with malice) can be considered extremely criminal, such as terrorism.
Originally posted by Flying Bear
(due to your vagueness, I realize this may not be the context you meant)
Comment