Originally Posted by
mjarosz
Our local radio show had on Pat Smith, from Salon.com's 'Ask the Pilot' and had him debunk most of what the lawyers are suing for. Although it's just a local radio show, I thought they did a good job explaining that there is no known cause yet and how terrible this lawyer really is for trying to bring a suit so early on in the case. The clip can be downloaded here and starts at 24:00 into the show:
WEDG-FM
You are making an assumption that you know "what the lawyers are suing for."
First of all, unless you have read the complaint in the one action that has been brought so far, then you can't know "what the lawyers are suing for" nor can you, or anyone else "debunk" it. Furthermore, any "debunking" will have to be done in the due course of the litigation, to include, if necessary, a trial.
Second, you will recall, that immediately after the accident, there was so much talk of icing as a likely cause, that icing then became "the" cause, even to a lot of people who should know better.
In the days and weeks since the accident, other possible, plausible theories have emerged to supplant the wild speculation about icing. These include pilot error in allowing the aircraft to stall on the approach. The use of the autopilot at that point in the approach, under those conditions, may, or may not have anything to do with it, but the point is, all of the speculation so far about the probable cause of the accident is suspect, short of an official finding of probable cause by the NTSB.
Likewise, any and all "debunkings" are suspect and premature.