SQ changed the procedure for checking and rechecking performance data after an investigation of contributing causes to the Auckland accident.
NOT SURE if what happened in Melbourne to EK is the same thing, but it does seem sensible to suspect this accident has a very similar genesis.
Planes don't mysteriously disappear or crash. This isn't a tv program. It's the real world. Something went wrong, and the probability rests with that something beginning with the input of erroneous data.
Not that I'd know. I wasn't there. But if I was a betting man...
On the subject of accelaration rates and what not, NO LAND 3 has the unequivocal answer. "Don't screw up the input."
Others are talking about all sorts of novel ideas. Why? Are you trying to reinvent the wheel? The analysis of performance characteristics is faultless. Got that? Faultless.
Applying the analysis by way of inputting the derived data is another thing altogether. Why make it harder? Why reinvent the wheel? The data's all there in the book. All it needs is to be accurately transcribed into the FMC. And there's the trap: all it needs...
I'm with the low viz guy
