NavList:

David Pike wrote:
"I’ve found with maritime and aviation incidents that the wisest policy is to make a mental assessment of what might have happened but then stay tight-lipped until the official report is published. There are so many possibilities that there’s little point in further speculation."

Hmm... No. I don't agree.

There's a huge difference between the tawdry social media eagerness to chase blood in the water and a simple sober attempt to figure out what happened. Asking what happened, even when we have limited evidence (which is always true) is good for us. And the NavList community has a very long history of discussions of maritime and aviation incidents from Cloudesley Shovell to the Costa Concordia ...and between those the two, Amelia Earhart. Some involve details of position navigation, directly relevant to our discussions. Others are navigation more broadly interpreted and somewhat marginal to the primary topics we discuss. But it's not merely acceptable for NavList conversation and thoughtful analysis. It's normal.

Some official report will eventually be published on this incident. The professional investigators who write the report will know far more than we do, but they are not saints. Respect for official reports is valuable, important, and even critical. Healthy skepticism of official accounts of events and independent analysis of evidence is also valuable and critical. We need both, don't we?

Frank Reed