David T. Ashley wrote:   
   > "john bates"  wrote in message   
   > news:47921f43$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...   
      
   >   
   > c)Glide distance ... If the problem occurred at 600 feet, there isn't very   
   > much in the world that will affect glide distance noticeably, except maybe   
   > retracting flaps a notch or two.  If the plane is traveling too slow,   
   > pitching down to gain a bit of speed will consume altitude (tradeoff of   
   > potential energy).  If the plane is traveling too fast, this means it will   
   > be traveling too fast near the ground, too, and pitching up near the ground   
   > will stretch the glide and bleed off the airspeed so as to delay contact   
   > with the ground.  600 feet is too low for any control actions to make that   
   > much of a difference in glide distance.   
   >   
      
   Retracting from landing to go-around flaps will not mortgage the   
   profile, on the contary! And it would be instinctive especially   
   if no procedure exists.  Every inch counts even if little can be   
   gained. Just how far from the runway did they contact? Whether   
   they could have raised flap is another question.   
      
   >   
   > I'm very curious to know what happened.   
      
   I can't see why the investigators cannot come out with a short   
   statement. I mean they know what happenned, it's just a matter of   
   finding how and why.   
      
      
   > I agree with other posters who pointed out that even with fuel contamination   
   > or exhaustion, simultaneous failure wouldn't normallly occur.   
   >   
   > e)Landing gear damage ... somebody said the plane must have hit hard (high   
   > vertical velocity).  Not necessarily true.  The plane came down in muck and   
   > grassy terrain.  The vertical speed could have been normal but the plane   
   > didn't react well to imperfections in the ground (little hills and so   
   > forth).  The black box will tell the story.   
      
   The runout in grass, or anything other than adequate loadbearing   
   surface, will always seem VERY short. There was a DC-10 reject in   
   Hawai years back, the struts dug yard deep ditches in reinforced   
   concrete and relatively speaking turf behaves much like water.   
   So yes, the short runout does not confirm a steep angle as much   
   as perhaps low or minimal speed. Some have said the plane just   
   dropped from 200 feet, bull. That would have meant a lot of very   
   serious injuries.   
      
      
   As far as the digital system (broad sense) goes, that's a good   
   suspect but I'm still unclear about this business of simultaneous   
   dual engine outage. It seems that no engines were available, alright,   
   but has anyone said they were both lost at the same time as   
   opposed to very far apart? Can any 777 types tell from the pictures   
   if all-engines landing flap had been lowered? That would negate   
   an engine-out approach before the second one packed up.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)