Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]
January 19th 08, 11:36 PM
Eeyore > wrote in
:
>
>
> john bates wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> > john bates wrote:
>> >
>> >> The fact that some experienced people all mentioned the nose high
>> >> attitude before a stall (Which was the case due to the very short
>> >> distance
>> it
>> >> travelled on the grass)
>> >
>> > If it had truly STALLED there would have been a far nastier mess.
>> > The pilot was just 'stetching' the glide.
>> >
>> >> why did it do this if under perfect control? This to
>> >> me implies that it was not just the engines.
>> >
>> > The engines didn't fail. There's clear evidence at least one was
>> > turning when it landed. They 'failed' to respond to a call for
>> > power. That's where the 'failure' is and it looks likely to be
>> > electronic to me (or some bizarre
>>
>> > fuel quality related issue).
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> *** All very interesting, Thanks Graham.
>
> As a followup I thought of a better explanation perhaps.
>
> The engines weren't working because of a failure somewhere else.
>
> You'll see the AAIB has been careful (unlike the media) not to say
> 'the engines failed'. There's a big difference between 'not working'
> and failed.
>
Wheras you just pul any old thing out of your ass whether you understand
it or not.
And you don't./
Bertie
:
>
>
> john bates wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> > john bates wrote:
>> >
>> >> The fact that some experienced people all mentioned the nose high
>> >> attitude before a stall (Which was the case due to the very short
>> >> distance
>> it
>> >> travelled on the grass)
>> >
>> > If it had truly STALLED there would have been a far nastier mess.
>> > The pilot was just 'stetching' the glide.
>> >
>> >> why did it do this if under perfect control? This to
>> >> me implies that it was not just the engines.
>> >
>> > The engines didn't fail. There's clear evidence at least one was
>> > turning when it landed. They 'failed' to respond to a call for
>> > power. That's where the 'failure' is and it looks likely to be
>> > electronic to me (or some bizarre
>>
>> > fuel quality related issue).
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> *** All very interesting, Thanks Graham.
>
> As a followup I thought of a better explanation perhaps.
>
> The engines weren't working because of a failure somewhere else.
>
> You'll see the AAIB has been careful (unlike the media) not to say
> 'the engines failed'. There's a big difference between 'not working'
> and failed.
>
Wheras you just pul any old thing out of your ass whether you understand
it or not.
And you don't./
Bertie