Hypothesis on USAir birdstrike

vaughn wrote:

Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong

You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.

Graham

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote 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.

Yeah it is actualy.

Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike. Probably
plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often fly
in flocks.

Graham

Now Bertei is removing groups ! sigh

"Gary L. Burnore" wrote:

"Gregory Hall" wrote:

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.......

My God ! Is it even possible to lose one of their accounts. I thought they were
'pro-abuse'.

Graham

On Jan 25, 11:13*am, (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.

Steve

Lemme see. The pilots said they encountered a big flock of big birds.
Thumps were heard and both engines quit at the same time. Each engine
has independent fuel and control systems for safety so that one can't
do something that affects the other.
So birds went into one but not the other? I'd bet that they'll
find bird damage in both. Lots of it.

Dan

Eeyore wrote in
:



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote 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.

Yeah it is actualy.

Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike. Probably
plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often fly
in flocks.

Graham

Now Bertei is removing groups ! sigh


Netkkkoping fjukktard.


Bertie

Eeyore wrote in
:



vaughn wrote:

Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong

You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.


Planespotting fjukkkkkkwit.



Bertie

wrote in news:ca87032c-7532-474f-9d2f-f178f34ba2b7
@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

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 !!!


Oh no! Don' tgive them ideas! Those fukkers give me a headache.



Bertie

Eeyore wrote in
:



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 ?

Blow me you nigel fjukkwit.




Bertie

Eeyore wrote in
:



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.


Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime theough
eh planespotter?



Bertie

Eeyore wrote in
:



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.


Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.

Bertie