snowfalcon2
To me, one notch less flaps sounds like a not-too-bad compromise in the circumstances.
Nonsense.
I could no more see a BA crew doing this than any other seasoned professional crew. They would know instinctively that the initial response of the aircraft
at that point in the approach would be do increase the rate of descent, not stretch the glide. They would know that the only means to prevent an increase in the rate of descent would be to increase the angle of attack and risk the stall in an already-compromised aircraft with many unknown faults. Read my previous post, please: I stated at in the short time available the initial response of the aircraft would be to sink and below 600' there is no altitude to recover from the initial increase in rate of descent due to loss of lift.
I doubt if the crew did this or even considered it...but, the data's not available to us, so we have to suspend judgement in favour of curiosity, don't we?
suggest It would be great if someone did the math as to what the optimum course of action would be in this kind of situation.
I suppose...to what end, however? Should we also "do the math" on Sioux City or the Gimli Glider?
Anyway, what the crew did in this respect turned out to be good enough, so kudos for that.
Not sure what to do with this statement. It's trivially obvious and circular in it's argument.