XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks   
   From: Sm@rt.1   
      
   Eeyore  wrote in   
   news:479284D8.12FF4725@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.   
   >   
      
   Wheras you just pul any old thing out of your ass whether you understand   
   it or not.   
      
   And you don't./   
      
      
   Bertie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)