Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Rental cars,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Travel deals
Travel Guides:
New York City,
San Francisco,
Las Vegas,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Venice,
Beijing,
Dubai,
Rio de Janeiro,
Bangkok,
Costa Rica
Travel Ideas:
Adventure,
Asia Travel,
Beaches,
Cruises,
Europe Travel,
Foodie Travel,
Healthy Travel,
Holiday Travel,
International Destinations,
National Parks,
Skiing,
Travel Blogs,
Travel Tips,
Travel Photography,
US Destinations,
Weekend Getaways
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-09-2011 @ 6:50AM
Haakon Dahl said...
I agree with Markus, although until just a few days ago, I agreed with HAL. Many of us as interested laymen retain the conclusion that the Airbus (the airshow crash) simply refused to stop trying to land, but a more technical explanation said that the pilot had selected far too low a power setting, and that the engines took 5-8 seconds to begin producing noticeable power from there no matter how far the throttles were advanced. Contributing also to the problem was the fact that for show, the plane was being flown in an unusually high pitch attitude, with the tail well below the main gear, which of course is not done in a proper landing (tail strike if you do), and would have exacerbated the perceived lack of engine power.