Originally Posted by Lemurian
No....No....No.....No......
Almost getting to be funny, if it wasn't sad, Lemurian. Would you care, for a change, to tell us what you think MIGHT have happened, instead of what you are sure DIDN'T happen?
Originally Posted by Lemurian
If I remember that discussion correctly, there was a few older pilots advocating that technique.
As it happened, my flying instructor was an ex-RAF Bomber Command pilot, Lemurian. He taught me the old RAF maxim that,
"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots; but there are no old, bold, pilots........"
Originally Posted by Lemurian
The rest of the pilots tended to consider an aborted landing as a very very last resort.
But surely the 'received wisdom,' as ably-explained by Bernd, is that if you land on a short wet runway and select reverse before you're sure that the ground spoilers have deployed, you don't HAVE any last resort, in terms of going around? All you can do is sit and watch the end of the runway getting closer at uncomfortably high speed.......?
Originally Posted by Lemurian
We are no longer on a Piper Cub. On the lower ECAM there is an automatic page selection for each flight phase, here the *WHEEL* page,on which a diagram of the spoilers is displayed. Little green arrows above each spoiler confirm their deployment.
Try Tiger Moth, and Cessna, and Beechcraft......and T21, and Slingsby, and Blanek.....
So, as I suspected, you can't actually SEE the spoilers from either seat - except maybe the extreme outboard ones? Yet ANOTHER panel display that pilots are taught to rely on, that may have gone wrong?
Please check the photographs on the first page of this thread. As far as I can see, only the extreme outboard spoiler (one of the in-flight spoilers) on the starboard side - that is, on the F/O's side - was deployed when the aeroplane crashed. Care to explain why, in your opinion, the pilots, facing an overrun situation, would actually have RETRACTED the ground spoilers moments before the crash?
We have a basic difference of approach, Lemurian. Most of my professional life was spent getting paid for 'lateral thinking.' You seem to take the view that, A. the 'book' is always right, and - therefore - that, B. anyone who gets into trouble just got what they deserved because they didn't follow the 'book.'
Not good enough. People are dying. Two lots in under a year, in similar circumstances, in the same marque of aeroplane. In that situation, IMO, you have ALSO to consider the possibility that the 'book' may be wrong to start with.