Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AAIU says Spanish aviation regulator contributed to Cork airport crash in 2011

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    But saying the aircraft was destined to crash is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

    OT, In my mind I am reliving the events of the day, the radio reports, the engine sound reports, the unusual flight paths, and to read the reports and hear they were worried about fuel flow and adjusted it to below minimum and had to increase it again.

    Ground witnesses reported an aircraft in obvious engine difficulty ~ what they were hearing is in the report.

    Technically the aircraft was in reasonable condition.


  • #53
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    miss no stars wrote: »
    But none of that means that the airplane was destined to crash or unflyable. .

    OK, it was a very good aircraft, quite advanced for it's size too, six people survived due in no small part to its construction and fire suppression systems alone.


  • #54
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    OT, In my mind I am reliving the events of the day, the radio reports, the engine sound reports, the unusual flight paths, and to read the reports and hear they were worried about fuel flow and adjusted it to below minimum and had to increase it again.

    Ground witnesses reported an aircraft in obvious engine difficulty ~ what they were hearing is in the report.

    Technically the aircraft was in reasonable condition.

    ????


  • #55
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    ????

    Ground witnesses reported an aircraft in obvious engine difficulties. [Fact]

    The official report explains this as the crew, whilst in 'Holding Pattern' adjusting their fuel flow.

    By the same reports they were not in ROVAL either.


  • #56
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    Ground witnesses reported an aircraft in obvious engine difficulties. [Fact]

    The official report explains this as the crew, whilst in 'Holding Pattern' adjusting their fuel flow.

    By the same reports they were not in ROVAL either.

    The aircraft did not have engine difficulties at any time, except in the last few seconds of flight.
    I might have to reread the report, but I'm pretty sure it said they were at ROVAL. Now granted they were flying manually, so the tracking may not have been spot on, but what is your point? Should we move it to conspiracy theories?


  • #57
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    The aircraft did not have engine difficulties at any time, ?

    I did say reported. That is uneducated people who hear and see things in real life and report them.

    The sounds were, to the ear witnesses on the ground of an aircraft in engine difficulty, it does not dismiss the facts, as I mentioned.

    AND WAS EXPLAINED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT.


Advertisement