Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
This is an issue of perception, not of fact.
The original post is ridiculously long , full of mostly irrelevant information.
There is no way for the original poster to know that the engines flamed out. Upon encounter with turbulence, the pilot retarded the power to reduce speed, the correct response in turbulence.
The airplane did not enter a "nose dive." That may have been the perception, but that does not happen to aircraft, though one may feel a drop; most likely it's a very slight descent, albeit rapid; what one perceives is not necessarily fact.
There's no "backup electrical generator," and were there to be a complete electrical failure, the flight would not have continued to the destination. There is an auxiliary power unit, not run at altitude, and not used to continue to a destination when other options exist.
The landing had nothing to do with the turbulence enroute.
My goodness JB. You have once again proven yourself to be an absolute
AH on this forum. Consider your audience. Someone who was riding in the back, completely unaware of all you might know.
I explained in a much more respectful, reasonable way, why it was unlikely that the aircraft actually entered a nose-dive. Why you felt it necessary to jump in and belittle someone who is just looking for information is something only you can answer. All I can say is that it's truly pathetic and most of your posts here are an embarrassment to our profession.
I could have called it an APU, but considering I was speaking to a non-pilot, I chose to call it something that would mean something to him. It's unlikely there was a complete electrical failure and I never indicated that was a reasonable possibility. While you discount almost all of what the OP says, why you would decided to take his analysis of complete electrical failure as gospel is very strange. If there was an issue with ONE of the engine driven generators (a far more reasonable scenario and what I suggested), perhaps requiring an IDG disconnect - You can bet your sweet ass that would have required starting the APU (AT ALTITUDE
) on a twin engine aircraft like the 737. AND instead of landing at nearest suitable, that 737 would have had the option to then continue to destination because of two full up AC sources. I've had it happen and done it on a couple of occasions.
I'm sure I'll get one of the JB classic, legalistic, black and white responses - so I'm standing by. In the meantime, to the OP, I apologize on behalf of JB and recommend you ignore him.