And yes, I landed last week with 5 tons fuel in the UK on a 737.
Well, congratulations on a safe outcome,
CAP 56 , but what exactly is your point?????
You can still crash with this amount of gas.
Too many posters have a fixation that the ramp fuel decision was the one & only cause of this accident. With the benefit of hindsight, we can all see that more fuel would have been advantageous, but no-one -
NO-ONE - can categorically state that in this circumstance, the fateful approach would not have be made at exactly the same time, with exactly the some conditions. The only difference would be that AG crashed with more fuel on board.
Re-read the report; it is 100 or so pages long, produced by experts from Spain, the UK & the US. Experts who are professional tin kickers and do this for a living.
At the end, there are 10 recommendations:
1 refering to the operator's fuel policy,
1 refering to go around training,
1 refering to met svcs,
3 refering to airfield & facilities &
4 refering to airframe construction/certification.
Blaming dogbox design is a misnomer.If you dont crash the thing,the dogbox is just fine.
Yeah right,
Rananim . And if my auntie had b@ll@cks, she'd be my uncle. Take another look at sections 2.6 & 3.2, & do my eyes deceive me, or do the photos of the flight deck show the reverse thrust levers fully up?
I've learned something from this accident:
This, from
I-FORD epitomises for me the whole crux. Let's never stop learning as the best of us is only 99% perfect.
There, but for the grace of God, go I.