Perhaps, not so elementary.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Conan Doyle scripted that remark for Holmes; and, broadly speaking it has validity; however, much depends on the ability to define and eliminate ALL impossibilities, and to qualify that which is 'improbable'. Don't mind me; (ramble follows – ignore as pleases). But, the curse of curiosity keeps dragging me back to the Essendon event and the ATSB reporting of the same.. Indeed, every time the event is mentioned (at BRB last for example) the persistent 'nagging' from an as yet undefined element drags me back to the event. A thinking 'out loud' scribble follows. There are three triggers to these ruminations; to wit, the previous events at Mt Hotham; the unseemly, hasty, unwarranted attendance of Hood on scene; and, potential for contamination; and, the lack of analysis of the first 'point of contact' the aircraft had with the 'wall' before collision with the building proper.
Something went seriously astray at Mt Hotham; the potential for a serious event writ large and clear. Experienced pilots (even the not so much) could and would have resolved the 'problems' defined and have been very (very) situationally aware. The 'flight path' and actions taken beg serious questions. The 'What happened' paragraph from the ATSB report into the Hotham event – HERE – should have raised some very serious concerns, worthy of 'deep' examination. Alas.
A little in-depth reading and digging (dry stuff) presents some interesting data. Beyond my remit, but (IMO) could have been given a little more consideration than the ATSB report into the Essendon event provided. FWIW – from a broad range of articles, some possible effects of diabetes medication - HERE.
“The pilot’s CASA medical records indicated that he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2007. At the time of the accident, the pilot was reportedly on multiple oral medications to manage his diabetes and was considered to have met the CASA requirements for maintaining his medical certificate.”
A curiosity which has always troubled was the very rapid arrival of Hood 'on site' and the quick pronouncement that it was pilot error and the rudder trim was incorrectly set; well that and some speculation about power lever roll back (bollocks). Which takes us to the curiously intriguing elements of the actual analysis. For example:-
ATSB - “Analysis of the roof impact marks and CCTV footage showed that the aircraft had contacted the concrete parapet wall on the right side of the empennage before exiting the roof of the building. It was likely that the impact with the wall caused the abrasion damage to the empennage and rudder.”
Old Sir Issac Newton came up years ago with a notion which has been tested and proven many times. Consider the forces involved – the right side of the aircraft thumped the parapet wall. 'Likely that the impact with the wall – etc – Rudder. No shit Sherlock. F=MA; + for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. Could it be possible that the first impact with 'the wall' damaged a little more than the elevator – considering the location of the cables and etc? The detailed airframe schematic is a handy reference.
Then; there's this little gem to consider:-
ATSB - “Both the left and right elevator trim actuators were found in a position that equated to a full nose‑up trim position. Witnesses, CCTV and ADS-B evidence either opposed or did not support ZCR having full nose-up trim at take-off. It is possible that the elevator trim was moved to this position by the pilot in an attempt to control the aircraft’s flight path or the trim may have moved as a result of impact forces. The ATSB determined however, that it was unlikely that the elevator trim was in the full nose-up position at take-off and did not examine the trim tab actuators any further in order to confirm their position at impact.”
Aye, indeed all food for thought; now, I ain't calling out conspiracy or dark murky doings; not at all, but the ATSB report and subsequent proceeding have all seemed a little 'shallow' – scripted in haste more than for nefarious reasons. As stated, curiosity a curse aligned with an itch I just can't scratch. Ignore the fool's rambling attempts to be rid of the incubus..I shall say no more..........
Toot – toot....
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
Conan Doyle scripted that remark for Holmes; and, broadly speaking it has validity; however, much depends on the ability to define and eliminate ALL impossibilities, and to qualify that which is 'improbable'. Don't mind me; (ramble follows – ignore as pleases). But, the curse of curiosity keeps dragging me back to the Essendon event and the ATSB reporting of the same.. Indeed, every time the event is mentioned (at BRB last for example) the persistent 'nagging' from an as yet undefined element drags me back to the event. A thinking 'out loud' scribble follows. There are three triggers to these ruminations; to wit, the previous events at Mt Hotham; the unseemly, hasty, unwarranted attendance of Hood on scene; and, potential for contamination; and, the lack of analysis of the first 'point of contact' the aircraft had with the 'wall' before collision with the building proper.
Something went seriously astray at Mt Hotham; the potential for a serious event writ large and clear. Experienced pilots (even the not so much) could and would have resolved the 'problems' defined and have been very (very) situationally aware. The 'flight path' and actions taken beg serious questions. The 'What happened' paragraph from the ATSB report into the Hotham event – HERE – should have raised some very serious concerns, worthy of 'deep' examination. Alas.
A little in-depth reading and digging (dry stuff) presents some interesting data. Beyond my remit, but (IMO) could have been given a little more consideration than the ATSB report into the Essendon event provided. FWIW – from a broad range of articles, some possible effects of diabetes medication - HERE.
“The pilot’s CASA medical records indicated that he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2007. At the time of the accident, the pilot was reportedly on multiple oral medications to manage his diabetes and was considered to have met the CASA requirements for maintaining his medical certificate.”
A curiosity which has always troubled was the very rapid arrival of Hood 'on site' and the quick pronouncement that it was pilot error and the rudder trim was incorrectly set; well that and some speculation about power lever roll back (bollocks). Which takes us to the curiously intriguing elements of the actual analysis. For example:-
ATSB - “Analysis of the roof impact marks and CCTV footage showed that the aircraft had contacted the concrete parapet wall on the right side of the empennage before exiting the roof of the building. It was likely that the impact with the wall caused the abrasion damage to the empennage and rudder.”
Old Sir Issac Newton came up years ago with a notion which has been tested and proven many times. Consider the forces involved – the right side of the aircraft thumped the parapet wall. 'Likely that the impact with the wall – etc – Rudder. No shit Sherlock. F=MA; + for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. Could it be possible that the first impact with 'the wall' damaged a little more than the elevator – considering the location of the cables and etc? The detailed airframe schematic is a handy reference.
Then; there's this little gem to consider:-
ATSB - “Both the left and right elevator trim actuators were found in a position that equated to a full nose‑up trim position. Witnesses, CCTV and ADS-B evidence either opposed or did not support ZCR having full nose-up trim at take-off. It is possible that the elevator trim was moved to this position by the pilot in an attempt to control the aircraft’s flight path or the trim may have moved as a result of impact forces. The ATSB determined however, that it was unlikely that the elevator trim was in the full nose-up position at take-off and did not examine the trim tab actuators any further in order to confirm their position at impact.”
Aye, indeed all food for thought; now, I ain't calling out conspiracy or dark murky doings; not at all, but the ATSB report and subsequent proceeding have all seemed a little 'shallow' – scripted in haste more than for nefarious reasons. As stated, curiosity a curse aligned with an itch I just can't scratch. Ignore the fool's rambling attempts to be rid of the incubus..I shall say no more..........
Toot – toot....