"@moderatar:
I don't agree with the readers ot this topic who praise the crew, I think they made a major b@lls up:
-there was a SIGMET warning of moderate to severe icing in their arrival TMA
-it was snowing at their destination
-they didn't preempt ice accumulation removal by earlier selection of anti-ice systems
-they waited until the (notoriously unreliable) ice warning activated before reacting
-they flew level at FL100 for 6 minutes in moderate to severe icing conditions
-this means that they cocked up their descent planning by nearly 30 miles
-yes I know that there are altitude constraints inbound to Munich but severe weather conditions demand decisive action
-they did not follow the correct procedure for engine vibration warnings in icing conditions
-they did not order an evacuation following a crash landing with obvious structural damage (gear ripped off with probable fuel tank damage)"
Maybe it is someone who THINKS to know it all before the facts turn up who has the b@lls up??
The reason for the thrust loss was the detachment of the ice impact panels in both engines almost at the same time, the panels turning by about 90 degrees behind the fan blades and acting literally like a thrust reverser inside the engine. So it could as well have happened in plenty VMC. No need to blame the crew about engine anti ice, during special checks ALL F70s except one had complaints about these ice impact trays.
Snowing at destination?
If light snow at more than 2000m visibility should be a reason to stop operation I would have had a few days off this week.
Evacuation? The gear ripped off was the NOSE gear, no main gears involved. No fuel tank damage. But 28 pax without their coats on; send them out in the snow for more than half an hour without any necessity, via slippery overwing exits or a half-extended pax door?