Originally Posted by
LOMCEVAK
And it would be an uncanny co-incidence for an engine malfunction that caused a significant reduction in thrust to occur during a manoeuvre which the pilot entered at an airspeed less than the minimum planned and during which he also failed to perform an escape manoeuvre despite being significantly below the gate height.
Can you explain your logic ?
The less-than-full-thrust, low entry speed, low apex height and failure to perform an escape manoeuvre that you cite are all
AFAIK undisputed facts.
So why does attributing the reduced thrust to an engine malfunction turn this into an "uncanny coincidence" ?