I hate it when articles do this. 90% of the story, with a cockteasing line about why the plane went down, then CUT to the full story in extremely deep detail. I understand that the author is trying to circumvent short attention spans with a short version to draw the reader into a longer article, but please don’t information bait
give the information in the beginning and then I’ll decide if I want to know a detailed history of the company the plane was owned by, or all the alternative names of the model
my issue is with how the article is structured. tell the story in miniature with a teasing line about the crux of the technical failure, then plough into acres and acres of detail with the teased information buried somewhere underneath. it’s unpleasant and unnecessary
yes the failure as a whole may have been structural, but that doesn’t change how the author withholds information in order to keep your attention on what are in fact largely extraneous details
> it was possible to accidentally transfer fuel between the Argonaut’s eight fuel tanks, potentially cutting off one or more engines from its fuel supply, without anyone noticing
give the information in the beginning and then I’ll decide if I want to know a detailed history of the company the plane was owned by, or all the alternative names of the model