One shouldn't expect such attention to detail in Internet "journalism". Copy editing and fact checking have gone out the window, and broadcast media are following a similar trend.
The scariest problem with the regionals is the relatively young age and low experience of the pilots, in both left and right seats. It always gives me pause when I see crew members who look as if they just finished high school, or at best, college, who are in command of these jets.
The kicker for me was when I saw a pilot walking towards his flight, trailing a flight bag emblazoned with two stickers, one of which was for his college, the other shouting, "TELL YOUR MOM TO STOP TEXTING ME:.
How professional.
I'm wondering about your assertion that the 767 was the replacement for the 757. With almost simultaneous introduction, the two aircraft were designed for totally separate markets. The 67, with its wider and higher-capacity cabin, was aimed more at the transoceanic segment, as opposed to domestic and lower-density European and Asian traffic.
Did you perhaps mean the later versions of the 737?
It was a DC-8 freighter full of live beef, and the captain (American) had had a few too many, which should have been obvious to the junior crew members (Japanese, and considerably younger).
Others who had observed the captain prior to the flight testified as to the captain's impairment.
http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=147
Thanks for the clarification. It had occurred to me that it might in fact be from a slightly different perspective, but without side by side comparison, it is, for all practical purposes, the same as the earlier release. There's really nothing new in the "new" video.
Why does everyone keep referring to that video as "new"? It was broadcast on just about every TV station with a news segment within a couple of days or so after the accident. It was taken by some spectator, I think with a cell phone, from across a body of water.
Just because it has now been released by the NTSB does not make it "new".
