From: rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   Graham   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)