全部
← Back to Squawk list
Private jet in crash that killed Bin Laden relatives came in too fast, report finds
A private jet that crashed, killing three members of Osama bin Laden’s family, landed too far down the runway because it was travelling 40% faster than the recommended speed, accident investigators concluded. The Saudi-registered Phenom 300 jet smashed into an earth bank at the end of the runway at Blackbushe airport, Camberley, on the border of Hampshire and Surrey, on 31 July last year before becoming airborne again and colliding with several parked cars. (www.theguardian.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
My comment was in response to yours where you referred to 'maybe they failed to buy enough "UP" '. You responded to my reply about the 'bark side of the force' with "See Mr Wiley...there are times when we can be in agreement...let's work on that !"
To help work on that, I referred you to a well-known work of social satire. Our joint conversation has slipped away from aviation in this instance.
Back on the aviation subject, you contributed comments on 'stabilized approach'. According to the report, the pilot initially planned to land after the ultralight. The ultralight pilot suggested the jet land first. The pilot climbed over the ultralight and sharply descended. In your opinion as a pilot, how much did that action have to do with the fatal unstabilized approach?
To help work on that, I referred you to a well-known work of social satire. Our joint conversation has slipped away from aviation in this instance.
Back on the aviation subject, you contributed comments on 'stabilized approach'. According to the report, the pilot initially planned to land after the ultralight. The ultralight pilot suggested the jet land first. The pilot climbed over the ultralight and sharply descended. In your opinion as a pilot, how much did that action have to do with the fatal unstabilized approach?
[This poster has been suspended.]
De mortuis nihil nisi bonum
[This poster has been suspended.]
I did ask you opinion. Your answer was "I wasn't there...Dosnt [sic] sound like something I would do". I think your answer will do for mine, with the addition of an 'e' and apostrophe after proofreading. (we all make typo's)
Let me lend some assistance with your challenges with Joel's remarks. And his remarks echo your own:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=De+mortuis+nihil+nisi+bonum
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=De+mortuis+nihil+nisi+bonum
[This poster has been suspended.]
Wilbur Sanch-esq,
When every single comment you make gets downvoted, you think you'd take a hint.
When every single comment you make gets downvoted, you think you'd take a hint.
Thanks Petey, I appreciate your gratitude.
[This poster has been suspended.]
Thank you for trying to add to our knowledge about aviation issues, in particular, your posting ISBN - 10:0486408787.
Can you help us less-sophisticated readers understand your contribution to this particular "thread" ?
Lacking your skill at aviation and its technology research, I suspect I am not the only one who believes you meant well, but simply had a typing error - you didn't mean to direct us to a child's story-book - didn't mean to sound like a resentful fellow with "free-floating personal anger" issues.
So - help us out - what exactly was that post meant to be about ? Is that some kind of identifier unknown to the FAR/AIM, ICAO proceedures, or a reference to the check-list for the type of aircraft involved ? Or perhaps you were quoting some instrument procedure unknown to us "outsiders" ?
Tell us more. After all, this is FLIGHT AWARE, where legitimate aviation enthusiasts come to learn more asbout aviation issues.