At this point, speculation is pointless.

Mema300 is right to keep the guesswork offline.

Mods, could we maybe have post #409 deleted out of respect? It's one thing to discuss certain things in private, but not a public forum imho

Cool post.


My guess is that nobody is saying it because that isn't what happened.

The NTSB already said publicly that the CVR comms were consistent with a loss of control - literally 2 days ago. And this is only my opinion... but I think they released that info right away to put these kinds of thoughts to rest.

What I find ironic about this crash is it happened a couple of weeks prior to the FAA mandated EET (Expanded Envelope Training) requirement deadline.

ummm, your post was #409

It wasn’t when he posted...deleted posts lose their number. See previous page.

How is it ironic, and are you insinuating something?

I don't think he is insinuating anything but hope he answers for himself. The FAA has mandated greater loss of control training for all 121 pilots starting this year. The mandate came about after analyzing recent incidents and accidents. I think he was implying that training might have been helpful in this case as the NTSB has stated that the accident is consistent with loss of control. What actually caused the loss of control is what needs to be determined. I don't think anybody can argue against greater training for all of us incase we are to encounter it at some time in the future.

"Loss of Control" covers pretty much everything under the sun. It doesn't answer any question.
Expanded envelope training sounds like "coffin corner" and deep stalls. That would be fun in the sim, but if I am not mistaken(thinking Air France) didn't failed instruments play a roll?

No I am not insinuating anything. Just the irony of an accident that was identified in the preliminary investigation as a loss of control event, and a new mandate by the FAA that goes into effect on March 12 that is supposed to help train pilots to recognize, avoid, and recover from such events. That’s all.