Originally Posted by
212man
Classy - using the deaths of 5 people to further your warped agenda! If it had been a twin there would have been certification requirements that would have removed a single point failure like this by introducing isolation and redundancy features.
??? promote my agenda ??? I think you'll find that I did not. Quite the opposite.
OTHERS (including yourself apparently !!) are trying to make it a Twin/Single issue, when it is clearly not, your indignation at someone mentioning SE/ME applies to those that went before and mentioned it, I did the opposite.
The design of the engine controls, being snagable, unlike B3, B206, H369 etc (obviously nothing to do with number of engines.)
followed by a messy cockpit, allowing a pax to interfere with controls
followed by the choice of landing location
followed by giving up on the restart (may not have worked but no need to throw away the chance, may well have worked, a slow turning disk might compensate for the reduce floatation at the front right)
followed by floats not working
followed by (effectively) locking the pax in their seats
that is 6 reasons. whoever mentioned number of engines is clearly deluded and obsessed and missing the 6 elephants in the room.
212 as for the emotional part of this accident, it is shockingly gruesome, and like all fatal accidents there are people's lives damaged and it is all very sad.
So I agree with you to the extent that this is not an appropriate incident to try and force a link with engine number as OTHERS have done here (including rather
hypopcritically yourself ???)