Conspiracy Theory Appears Less Likely in Fatal Crash

I used to end my reports with "No violations were observed at the time of inspection". What that meant was that I didn't see anything at that particular time of the visit, not meant to be a sign-off that this particular business was OK until I visited again 10-14 months later or nothing has ever been in violation. The NTSB statement says to me "We didn't see anything obvious, and have no reason to take a closer look to uncover any less obvious stuff." I did very thorough inspections during my tenure. They became a benchmark because I went beyond the obvious and looked at ways that we could be fooled. When I said no violations were observed, I had actually covered all angles. Did the NTSB do the same?

Are there some elements of it that you find suspicious? There seems to be no dissent from the evidence that he asked for and attempted a 360 degree turn in the middle of an instrument approach which is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

was to readjust the ground signal so that the plane comes in too low. The plane hits the ground short of the runway, the ground signal is put back to normal, and everybody wonders why the crash. I'm not a pilot, so I don't know the specifics of this. IIRC, I read about this in the book "Compromised" by Terry Reed. He was describing the crash of Ron Brown, Clinton's Commerce Secretary, in 1996. BTW, no, he doesn't think that Bill Ordered it. Anyway, I thought about this when Wellstone's plane went down.

Bill