Originally Posted by
LeiYingLo
Which is what any competent twin pilot knows to do and would've done in the first place.
Simplistic answer that doesn't help.
Akro et al, Furious agreement gents, but I didn't mean to revive this thread for repetition.
Even with the ATC descents it should have maintained height at 2500ft on one... unless the one that was going was only putting out a bit over 200hp in its naturally aspirated form
- in the tests following the accident was the scenario and performance of one engine shut down and one operating without turbocharger evaluated?
- with this in mind was the turbocharging system on the 'good' or operating engine really closely examined? Or was it assumed that the bad engine was the one that the pilot shut down, and this was the one that got most attention? (perhaps the ATSB investigators are time poor and are under some form of pressure to get results under time constraints, leading to unconscious bias or assumptions that suit their own situation, so to speak)
- maybe it all was done by ATSB, but in reports of yesteryear a hypothesis would be proposed and the proven or disproven with the available evidence (or insufficient evidence, which no doubt is what happened here, but at least mention that in its relation to the hypothesis!)
- for those of us that want to know, I'd argue all of us that have lives invested in aviation, what is the avenue to get reports re-examined?