Originally Posted by p51guy today
The reason for the crash as it looks now is they let the speed deteriorate to stick shaker and added go around power without trimming the aircraft proportional to the power increase.
What made you change your mind since your previous statement? Did they publish a report overnight?
Originally Posted by p51guy yesterday
One was going to crash no matter what and the other needed manual thrust to go around when the RA malfunction retarded the throttles at a fairly high altitude.
It seems that until recently you were one of those believers convinced that the aircraft crashed without thrust, I'm glad that someone enlightened you about the thrust and trim
Btw (this means "by the way" and it is not an EASA approved certification speed), I suggest you read slower, that way you wouldn't have missed that Vz isn't an indicated "V" speed but an acronym for vertical speed (speed on the Z axis). It's commonly used by scientists, designers, military pilots and some amateurs).
I sincerely do apologize for all the generated confusion by this very serious matter as it prevail over any other sensible comments I could have posted.
Bearfoil, in regard to your comment on accident comparisons, let me one more time explain that I'm not trying to compare accidents by physics but by human behavior. In these particular cases the situational awareness and acceptance by crews are very interesting. Sully was climbing when he lost his engines... and didn't wait for the stick shaker to react. His capacity to understand, accept and change is mindset for a new strategy in a very short moment was remarkable and noticed by most of us. The (ab)use of automated systems often contributes to extend the disbelief period, delaying proper identification and correction of determined issues. Why waiting for the AT to correct a low speed? Why staring at the AP wasting energy on a wrong path during a VMC approach?