It's pretty clear they're laying out that this is pilot error, unlike the article's intent to blame parties other than the pilot. The poster is trying to correct that, from an obvious place of knowledge and experience most of us do not have, and isn't being rude about it either.

It's important to understand why things happen in order to prevent them, and to counter the narrative of the opinionated article. And if we should wait for the NTSB report, then so should the article.

▲

treis 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

More than one thing can be true. Flying into the side of a mountain is an error by the pilot (obviously). It can also be true that if GPS wasn't being jammed it wouldn't have happened.

▲

wat10000 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

“If X was different then Y wouldn’t have happened” is a useless way to evaluate things that leads one to blame a butterfly flapping its wings for causing a hurricane.

▲

gpm 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not useless if you can identify and stop the butterflies that cause hurricanes.

▲

wat10000 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

The point is that they don’t cause hurricanes, despite the fact that some hurricanes might not have happened if not for the flapping.

I can point to at least one fatal crash that wouldn’t have happened if GPS was unavailable. Would it be reasonable to say that crash was caused by a lack of GPS jamming?

	▲	gpm a minute ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]