@Nialler:
Don't be so silly:
Quote:
Depends on what stage of approach the engine failure occurs (above/below 1000'), IMC/VMC and if stable or non stable etc. If they felt they were not stable then they could not continue the approach. However nobody actually knows the facts yet except the flightcrew so it's entirely conceivable that they had already started a go around before the failure occurred etc.
Armchair theory though from us all until the report so lets just be delighted with a safe outcome.
Where are you coming from? Let's just speculate wildly and fade into the background when our initial speculations are proven wildly untrue.
Easier stuff, surely?
Easy tiger! Not sure why you are being quite so aggressive there?
Which bit are you getting so angry at? The first two sentences are SOP.
I think where I am coming from is that saying "why didn't they just land" is a bit simplistic as there were potentially many variables that lead to the decision to go around. As of yet nobody knows if the failure occurred before or after the go around so the option to just land may not have been an option at all.
That's not a theory I am presenting it's more just a balanced view. As for fading into the background well I was rather hoping to stick around and have some more useful input into this discussion as long as that doesn't upset you.
Finally I don't have a clue what "Easier stuff surely?" means
