JP
A line on a map, is a line on a map, is a line on a map!
At low level (If you ever did much!) at least, it is NEVER intended to be a 'railway track' to which the aircraft is constrained!
The fact that the aircraft may have been 500 metres away from that 'railway line' is (IMHO - and I imagine ANY 'operator' with RELEVANT experience!) utterly insignificant, except for the fact that people like yourself can use it to 'imply' the crew were somehow, already negligent, BECAUSE of that!
Secondly, I personally witnessed the yachtsman Holbrook deliver his evidence at the FAI (under oath!), and to describe him as an unreliable witness is, simply, laughable!
Were you there?
I imagine you aren't aware, that his occupation is 'instrument maker', and I can assure you that, the most important parts of his evidence were extremely well measured!
Now, how about a proper answer, I repeat:
"JP
You are very good at asking questions.
But not so good at answering them!
I asked, what was incompatible with the FACTUAL evidence in my earlier posting?" - of 27th Nov.
Any chance of an answer to a VERY simple question?
Then again, perhaps we should take your comment that: "We do not know what the weather was like at sea level" as answer enough.
Thank you for that useful contribution.
invertron
I am trying to think of an air accident where the aircraft was NOT below \'safety altitude\' when it struck the ground.
Can you help us by being a little more specific, since I don\'t think this point alone, assists an understanding of what CAUSED this to happen!
Thank you.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Dec 2004 at 17:51.