Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the
general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and
kill all hangar talk among pilots.

Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we
all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar
talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who
isn't.

We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable
doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing.
They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost
every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea
that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole
lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things
we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be
it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know
and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity.

(this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant)

Scott Moore wrote:
Tom Fleischman wrote:

If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p



You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge
and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing
new.