I think the reason the Chinese are not saying anything is because they are going to have to lawyer up. And they sure as hell are not going to say ANYTHING until the lawyers approve it. How was the Germanwings case litigated?

bhill wrote:

I think the reason the Chinese are not saying anything is because they are going to have to lawyer up. And they sure as hell are not going to say ANYTHING until the lawyers approve it. How was the Germanwings case litigated?

What? It’s a dictatorship. Who is going to sue them?

I think the Chinese will not address this until their investigation is complete, which will take some time. Even if they already have some idea of what happened, we won't hear about it until they are ready to control the discussion in China. That's just how they do things.

The major question is how much information they will ultimately release publicly, and how they will explain the flight data. Just have to wait and see. If their conclusions are fraudulent, then I think you would see the NTSB speak up. But not before.

bhill wrote:

I think the reason the Chinese are not saying anything is because they are going to have to lawyer up. And they sure as hell are not going to say ANYTHING until the lawyers approve it. How was the Germanwings case litigated?

"Laywer up?" This will be difficult. Lawyers end up in jail in China.

Why on earth would the NTSB say one of their colleagues have leaked information to the press?

Of course no information was officially provided to the media. They’re literally not allowed to do that

Good luck getting the NTSB to say their staff leaked the info

Doesn’t mean the info is not correct

Opus99 wrote:

Why on earth would the NTSB say one of their colleagues have leaked information to the press?

Of course no information was officially provided to the media. They’re literally not allowed to do that

Good luck getting the NTSB to say their staff leaked the info

Doesn’t mean the info is not correct

To claim that an official provided the information to the media, and an official CAAC statement that no information has been provided to the media contradicts statements made in the press.

Man I’ve never seen anyone go to such lengths to want there to be a problem with a (Boeing) aircraft - like the media has a Boeing bias.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Why on earth would the NTSB say one of their colleagues have leaked information to the press?

Of course no information was officially provided to the media. They’re literally not allowed to do that

Good luck getting the NTSB to say their staff leaked the info

Doesn’t mean the info is not correct

To claim that an official provided the information to the media, and an official CAAC statement that no information has been provided to the media contradicts statements made in the press.

I’m not sure you understand some of the semantics used by Western journalists. An “official” is a label commonly used for a government employee speaking anonymously. An official can be speaking independently without the approval of the agency or as a spokesperson.

There are circumstances where an official provides information to a journalist that the company later denies!

trad01 wrote:

bhill wrote:

I think the reason the Chinese are not saying anything is because they are going to have to lawyer up. And they sure as hell are not going to say ANYTHING until the lawyers approve it. How was the Germanwings case litigated?

"Laywer up?" This will be difficult. Lawyers end up in jail in China.

In general that seems like a good place for them.......

I wonder if the "source" is actually someone from Boeing or within the Chinese government.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

I wonder if the "source" is actually someone from Boeing or within the Chinese government.

It wouldn't be China as they said US officials. I've wondered about Boeing but am not sure whether they'd be identified as such in the media or not. I'd guess it's not Boeing as that would introduce bias that the press would likely report, also China remains a major customer for Boeing.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

I wonder if the "source" is actually someone from Boeing or within the Chinese government.

Unlikely to be either, the term “US official” basically narrows it to someone working for federal government, most likely the NTSB. They wouldn’t specify US for a Chinese official and if it was Boeing they would wouldn’t call them a US official either. A Boeing source would likely be labelled as “a source close to the investigation” or something like that (would likely be similar for a Chinese official since specifying “Chinese official” could put such a source in needless risk).

If I had to guess, the data from the FDR and the CVR has been reviewed. Everyone is right by saying the FDR data could not necessarily prove or disprove an intentional act. But add in the CVR and there must be a reason for this leaked conclusion. So someone must have leaked knowledge of what is on the CVR in my opinion. We as the general public may not ever know the whole true story behind this one.

buzzard302 wrote:

If I had to guess, the data from the FDR and the CVR has been reviewed. Everyone is right by saying the FDR data could not necessarily prove or disprove an intentional act. But add in the CVR and there must be a reason for this leaked conclusion. So someone must have leaked knowledge of what is on the CVR in my opinion. We as the general public may not ever know the whole true story behind this one.

In the General public's mind the cause has been determined and end of story, not speaking of the people on this site but the average person with little or no knowledge about Aviation. When the official cause is announced it will be relegated to page 5. IMHO China may put out something like "No technical fault was found with the Aircraft and Pilot error is considered to be a factor" They will dance around the issue. It is interesting that China Southern failed to mention a plan for the 100 Maxes they have on order. This could be a retaliation for the leak.

travaz wrote:

In the General public's mind the cause has been determined and end of story, not speaking of the people on this site but the average person with little or no knowledge about Aviation.

Reading this ad verbum you are saying that if someone has any knowledge of aviation, and he/she is not the clueless general public, this could not have been a suicide. What if it was after all? Not saying that's what you meant to say, but that's how it reads.

I agree about the potential MAX order retaliation you mentioned.

buzzard302 wrote:

If I had to guess, the data from the FDR and the CVR has been reviewed. Everyone is right by saying the FDR data could not necessarily prove or disprove an intentional act. But add in the CVR and there must be a reason for this leaked conclusion. So someone must have leaked knowledge of what is on the CVR in my opinion. We as the general public may not ever know the whole true story behind this one.

There was no reference to the CVR data in any of the stories. I suspect that would be offered as further evidence, if it was available. Also suspect that was the reason they held out the option that the inputs might have been forced or from other than the pilots.

travaz wrote:

It is interesting that China Southern failed to mention a plan for the 100 Maxes they have on order. This could be a retaliation for the leak.

The reason given in their statement was delivery uncertainty. That could refer to Boeing ability to deliver, or their ability to accept, or both. Travel market is depressed in China right now. The financial reports were likely written before the leak.