Oh dear, when logical debate fails a fool will resort to insults, quite an insight to your character
Originally Posted by
Thomas coupling
Skydiver:
What is it you don't understand. Think what you just said:
.
IT WASN'T the root cause of the "crash".
It definitely was the root cause of the landing but not the "crash".
An aircraft which has no fuel on board isn't guaranteed to crash - FFS????
Stick to skydiving or microlites..............
An aircraft with no fuel on board is either guaranteed to crash or conduct a forced landing is the correct statement you should have made. However, if the fuel situation had been correctly managed that decision would have been a very unlikely eventuality or can you not understand that?