Originally Posted by
ANCPER
I don't get you! Not one question of why?
Yes, I wonder why she took over at low level when by the crew's own testimony the approach was stable, on speed and on glide. If you know why that is, pleas post your information.
Originally Posted by
ANCPER
It would appear it's indisputable that she didn't correct the nd attitude, but was that the result of a bounced landing which turned to ****.
No, it was not the result of a bounced landing. There is a video posted earlier in this thread which very clearly shows the plane descending and hitting nosewheel first. Besides, even if it *were* the result of a bounced landing, (it wasn't) that would have been *her* bounced landing. Have you already forgotten that she took over control of the plane at 200-400 feet AGL?
Originally Posted by
ANCPER
You seem to accept that she took over for no reason
Nope, didn't say that. I have no idea why she took over, but given that the approach was (once again) stable, on speed and on glide, it is odd that she took over.
Originally Posted by
ANCPER
and then somehow flew the nose into the rwy,
Really, you're trying to suggest there's some question that she flew the nosewheel into the runway? Have you seen the video? It shows the plane hitting the runway nosewheel first. By her own testimony, as reported by the NTSB. If she didn't fly the nosewheel into the runway, who did?
Originally Posted by
ANCPER
Did the NTSB state she took over between 200-400' or is it just prune-fact?
Uhhh, That's from the NTSB. One of the problems here is that you are *grossly* ignorant about what information had been released publicly. This is a case in point.
Like I've said before, I'm not trying to hang her, not demanding her head on a platter. I am merely responding to previous claims that firing was an unreasonable response to crashing an airplane and that it was being done because she was a woman.