Hypothesis on USAir birdstrike

On Jan 25, 4:12*pm, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:13:30 +0000 (UTC), (Steve Pope)
wrote:

wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:

The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
simultaneously.

Yep

It was birds in both.

Not yet demonstrated.

Al KY Da. Did it!

For every action there's an equal and opposite conspiracy theory.

"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:07:59 -0500, "Gregory Hall"
wrote:


"Gary L. Burnore" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"

wrote:


"Steve Pope" wrote in message
...

Lookin' more likely

How so?

They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
pulled
from the bottom of the river. Heh.

Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So
it's
NOT
likely. Besides, each side has totally separate and redundant systems
so
the
usual crap from the doom-and-gloom theorists applies.



Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?

Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for losing your
DataBasix account for net abuse that he forgot to pull up.



Says the guy with the criminal record . . .

http://gb2pic.notlong.com [Mug shot and criminal specs]

--
Gregory Hall

(Steve Pope) wrote in news:gli2ls$lot$1
@blue.rahul.net:

Eeyore wrote in
:

Steve Pope wrote:

The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
instead of a double birdstrike, there was a single
birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
power also?

NIL

Lookin' more likely


Whuh?

Bertie

"Steve Pope" wrote in message
...
Gary L. Burnore wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"

wrote:


"Steve Pope" wrote in message
...

Lookin' more likely

How so?

They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
pulled
from the bottom of the river. Heh.

Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So it's
NOT
likely.

The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine. Blades
are apparently intact, according to what I read. The second engine
did not at first glance ingest a bird,

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.

but we'll have to wait for
more total information.

Exactly.

Vaughn

vaughn wrote:

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.

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.

Steve

(Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
@blue.rahul.net:

vaughn wrote:

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

On Jan 25, 9:59*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
(Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
@blue.rahul.net:

vaughn wrote:

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

Its the 'magic bird' theory!

See, the bird first scared the aircrew, then was sucked through Eng1,
expelled at .95 mach where it then was carried up and over the plane
to the other engine where it hit John Connolly in the wrist.

Nah, to simple.

I think I heard from a friend who saw it on the internet at his
cousin's house that Dick Cheney was wheeling through Central Park with
a black box that had a big red button labelled "Set off airborne
thermite grenades on flight 1549".

JUST LIKE 9-11 !!!

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Eeyore wrote in
Steve Pope wrote:

The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
power also?

NIL

nope, wrong again planespotter

Expecting you to give an example would be pretty futile I expect.

Why do engines have independent fuel systems for example ?

Graham

harry k wrote:

I hope the final accident report is published here

Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB site
when it comes out.

Graham

Steve Pope wrote:

wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:34 am, (Steve Pope) wrote:

The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
simultaneously.

Yep

It was birds in both.

Not yet demonstrated. The other possibility is some other TBD
flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
did not ingest a bird.

Act of God maybe ?

Graham

And please trim the stupid groups Bertei adds. It's kook fodder.