Not necessarily, I think good discussion can come, even if the speculation doesn't turn out to be exactly the cause.cncpc wrote:
I'm concluding that you're one of the "Wait till the official report" guys, which is perfectly fine.
News media reporting on aviation accidents is almost entirely uninformed by anyone who knows much about aviation.
This is why we should not give a lot of credit to an article that includes descriptions that don't make sense. If the descriptions did make sense, then give the article more consideration.I do know that the pressure is to get out anything new ASAP.
The article itself says; "The channel emphasized that its interpretation of the transcript could not be considered the official version of what had happened." So immediately the CVR transript is suspect.So what is new, and I think will turn out to be sort of true, is that there is a remark like "Don't do that" on the CVR.
I agree, however, it would be unlikely that much information will be gained from this one article.Some people, particularly those flying the 737, don't want to wait to find out why a 737 would abandon what seemed to be a normal approach, climb into the clag, and then dive out and straight into the ground.
To top it off, and illustrate my point, avherald.com, (which could also be suspect, but is generally pretty good, and consists of only aviation related news) includes information that says.
On Mar 29th 2016 the MAK condemned all "leaked" information reported by Russian media as false and stated, that no information whatsoever has been leaked from the investigation.
This is why I believe it is foolish to attempt to interpret what is in this particular article. It could turn out to be right, but right now, I think there are too many questions about its accuracy to spend time with that. Just wait a few more days/weeks until corroborating evidence is presented.
BTD