Discussion:
Hypothesis on USAir birdstrike
(too old to reply)
Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
2009-01-26 04:13:17 UTC
Permalink
The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
but it is dangerous to bet against it.
Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
either.
Yea,h it is actualy.
I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
theory is correct.
not neccesarily.
Bertie
MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT DID IT LIKE THEY DID 9-11
Bertie the Bunyip
2009-01-27 05:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain
The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
but it is dangerous to bet against it.
Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
either.
Yea,h it is actualy.
I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
theory is correct.
not neccesarily.
Bertie
MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT DID IT LIKE THEY DID 9-11
And why shouldn't they? If they can't do it who could? Smersh?

bertie

Loading...