Thanks for #2221, Bernd, I guess we've mended some fences.
Originally Posted by bsieker
I thought it might be a good idea, but the information on it, apart from what you quoted, is sketchy. And PBL tried quite hard to find something more substantial.
Maybe I'm being unduly cynical, Bernd, but I'm not in the least surprised that there isn't much information.
The regulators and the manufacturer will eventually have to explain, as best they can, why more decisive action was not taken following the clear warning contained in the (to my mind, admirable) Taiwanese report on Taipei. But that will not happen for years, during the relatives' lawsuits etc. - in the meantime it is not in their interests to discuss the matter. That's 'the way of the world,' I'm not complaining about it.
Originally Posted by bsieker
So my point was trying to show that one should not prioritise
T
hat's probably the difference between us. My own analytical technique (as befits someone of my advanced age!) tends very much to be based on Rudyard Kipling's poem:-
"I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."
Obviously one has to keep an open mind and be prepared to modify one's views when (if?) additional information becomes available. But on present evidence my views are:-
1. Had the ground spoilers and brakes operated as intended the overwhelming probability is that the aeroplane would have landed normally.
2. However, for whatever reason, one TL was not retarded.
3. The consequences were that the ground spoilers did not deploy and the autobrakes did not operate.
4. The pilots did not realise (and were not warned) that the problem was the wrongly-positioned TL, and therefore reacted by thinking that they were facing a spoiler and/or brakes malfunction.
As far as I'm concerned those factors (especially the fact that the pilots did not recognise and immediately rectify the initial problem) made an incident/accident of some sort virtually certain.
Other factors, such as darkness, poor weather/visibility, the ungrooved, wet, minimum-length runway, etc., almost certainly contributed to the severity of the accident. But, IMO, on present evidence, either singly or in combination, they cannot be said in any sense to have CAUSED it.
About your WBA, I read it with interest when it first appeared on here. I think it might be better if it started at an earlier point - specifically at the commencement of the flare (which any pilot will tell you is the beginning, and the foundation, of any landing) rather than at touchdown. There are some clues in the CVR transcript, around that time, that maybe shed a little light on the circumstances (particularly the pilots' likely priorities/pre-occupations) during the flare and touchdown. Happy to expand on those if you wish?
Tony