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