Originally Posted by
AnFI
"It might also be a failure of that one engine... "
are you serious?
the chance of that is almost zero
"why on earth would the post have to be removed??" because this forum Mods removed my symetrical post when i suggested that belief it two engines was equivalent to superstition. They said it was "nonsense", if you think that this accident had anything to do with it being a single then your grip on reality is weak. That is nonsense, obviously, and it should be removed as nonsense also.
This is NOT a single engine accident, and the suggestion that it might be is OBVIOUSLY nonsense, if the mods don't remove that NONSENSE suggestion then they are obviously not neutral wrt THAT arguement.
ok?
AnFI,
You have chosen to challenge my moderating on this and the AW139 thread, failing yet again to recognise that the vast majority of Rotorheads are failing to support your constant preaching of your single engine mantra. I am not inclined to moderate the offhand comment of another about twin/single, but I
will remove your comments when they are both off-topic and designed to contribute nothing more than your desire to assert your beliefs.
Your students all talk well of you, your flying exploits are exemplary, yet you persist in upsetting many of the contributors to Rotorheads by refusing to acknowledge that there is more than one side to a discussion. I have as many single engine hours as you, and the same number again on twins, and recognise that they both have their place in aviation. It may do your cause more good were you to do the same.