Originally Posted by
SLFinAZ
The shut down of #2 engine directly contributed to the specific circumstances of the crash. Had the engine been left on in accordance with specific SOPs that clearly state that no engine (even if on fire) is to be shut down below 400 ft a different specific outcome would have emerged.
This does not mean a different final outcome but we'll never know
Agreed until there...
Originally Posted by
SLFinAZ
what we do know with 100% certainty is that the FE's flawed decision robbed the captain of any chance to successfully control the "landing".
... but I agree no more here:
- as per SOPs, the #2 engine would have most certainly been shut down once in flight & above 400ft;
- hence any landing attempt would have been on 3 engines "only", which is abnormal but certainly not "without a chance".
Originally Posted by
jcjeant
Yes I have really difficulty to imagine the strip being swept along the trajectory (over such a large distance) of the aircraft ...
It is a concept that escapes me completely .. seems some"magic" at work there ..
What is the definition of "such a large distance" for you?
I'm fond of Harry Potter, but not so fond of magic regarding aviation safety.