US Air might be lying about the bird strike to cover their

asses. :mad:

Passengers from the same flight route, same plane a few days earlier heard very loud noises coming from the engine. The flight attendants told the passengers they might have to turn around and then the pilot said they would stay in the air because some tests had been done and the plane was OK. One passenger said the sound was so loud and horrific that he texted his wife to tell her goodbye.

We should all be experiencing outrage overload by now. However, I'll wait for the official story.

NObody.

If there is an agency they haven't politicized, I don't know which it might be.

And, as I said, I'll wait for the official report to damn the NTSB - or anyone else. But thanks for your concern.

He texted his wife goodbye! That is HUGH!

who may or may not have been a passenger on the plane, may or may not have really been through the same kind of incident, may or may not be telling the truth? Wow, that is HUGH!!!1!

when they're retrieved. Then again, didn't one of the engines mysteriously go missing at one point? :tinfoilhat:

ETA: Aah yes... both engines went missing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17inquire.html?hp

Fuck, is there ANY topic on which some DUers are not the world's foremost authorities? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the engines suffered extreme stress upon striking the water, and are designed to rip off without taking the wing with them? Naw, that can't be it. The much more reasonable solution is that US Airways has been trying to kill a planeload of people for some time now, with the NTSB fully supporting the coverup. :eyes:

Looks to me like it came through with flying colors. :sarcasm:


Where's that forum on stress analysis and the results of bird strikes on aircraft? Oh yeah, there isn't one, DU just knows about rumors.:eyes:

I heard it on NPR. According to the report--and I don't have a link--the NTSB actually has "snarg experts" to investigate such phenomena.

Your linked news article out of date. They at first thought both engines came off, but only the left one did.

At least they were on the photos I saw here of the NTSB removing the plane from the water.

Correction:One engine did fall off.

are liars, why don't we wait for the NTSB results...or is the NTSB covering for USAir too?

(Cockpit voice recorder.)

somebody's cuckoo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4860022

:P

Horrible if true. Can you believe they would risk it? Those people almost fucking died!

However, I am taking the word of the pilots that it was a double bird strike.

Hard to believe pilots would be protecting the airline as they call mayday and prepare for a crash landing all in less than 4 minutes....

However, the investigation may show an additional problem with the aircraft but the crew sure wasn't in on a cover up.

and have we heard anything official about what they said caused this? Sometimes people make mistakes too, perhaps they saw birds and heard the compressor stall, and thought the birds caused it, when in reality it was a hardware failure?

in third planet:

"That happened to ME too!"

Why don't we wait for the conclusion of the NTSB investigation?

The NTSB is good at catching WTF went on.

on airplanes, averting airplane crashes, aeronautics , aerodynamics , flight patterns, Canada Geese and water landings???:rofl:

What was I thinking?

:silly:

(and the SEC and the FAA and NASA and the NCAA and the UN and ...) would just look at the internets once in a while!? ;)

So you're holding me to a higher standard than most of DU!

But regarding the NTSB, the investigation is stalled because I think the left engine is still missing. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/18/national/main4731798.shtml

and could probably come to some pretty fair conclusions without it, too.

I was sort of being silly since CNN has already convicted US Air of wrongdoing.

They probably know what really happened.

better to voice the worst possible judgement about an event based on the flimsist of information, than to wait until the all of the evidence has been collected, analysed and reported. Think Duke University lacross atheletes a couple of years ago.

to make such a "landing" (watering).

They don't really glide, you know.

They're not paper airplanes, but they DO glide.

There have been countless safe landings under no power.

And they have an APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) that was probably
still running, supplying electrical and hydraulic power.

Tesha

Even if it was only one engine, that plane wouldn't fly again until the engine was repaired/replaced, and that doesn't happen that quick!

Or perhaps they dismissed the problem, when there was something serious going on. Would a compressor stall necessitate an inspection when the plane finally landed?

...and then a second strike a few days later that wrecked both engines, forcing the flight crew to ditch her in the Hudson.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/1-06/Maintenance.htm

Check this info, if you care.

(snip)
Compressor surging is unpredictable, so the only kind of maintenance tasks that can adequately determine the effects of a compressor surge on the physical well-being of an engine, are unscheduled maintenance tasks. Since such tasks should be both applicable and effective, it must therefore be possible to do a comparison between the condition of an engine with no damage, and one that has sustained damage as a result of compressor surge effects. The inspection method would have to be applicable while the engine is installed and would generally include a visual inspection, most of which would entail the use of a borescope. The principal intent would be to inspect as many engine compressor and turbine blades as possible without disturbing the engine interior. Since the causes of some compressor surge events may be attributed to malfunctions of the engine’s fuel control unit or of its bleed valves, these items may also qualify for some sort of inspection. Typically, the visual inspection of these items would verify their secure attachment to the engine and lack of evidence of damage or leakage. In some cases, operational or functional checks might prove beneficial.
-------

That's completely diferent from a bird strike whick can damage the blades...especially LARGE BIRDS!

From everything I've read, thre were even images on the weather radar indicative of a large flock of geese.

He can make them say whatever he wants. Were you unaware of that?

Not to mention the fact that your link points to a government website. Sure, it might be Canadian, but * controls them too.

:sarcasm:

one of us right.

...and the engine was not damaged enough to make it inop. Bird strikes are VERY common and most don't put the engine completely out of commission.

Flew in it on purpose.

Were to fly to the secret airfield at the North Pole where Flights 77 and 93 actually landed on 9/11, the trio of aircraft intended to attack the Obama Inauguration Concert on Sunday during the invocation, thus allowing Bush to declare martial law and bomb Iran.

Or so some say.

:tinfoilhat:

been a secret member of the Zorastian religion and didn't want to be a part of any attack on the Zorastian homeland.


"Sully" in Persian means "One who protects the skys of the homeland from the hands of the foriegn barbarians".


Its allllllllll there for anybodyyyyyyyyyyy to see.

Do you think the pilot risked his own life to protect the company?

Sometimes shit IS just a coincidence!

now. Is New York south enough if the geese came from the arctic?

They migrate because of food and water needs, but a large city will often have both in plentiful supply.

App. four days since the crash.

Initially we had the "no miracle" clause injected by day two ("I don't care what the definition of miracle is-- it conjures up religious symbolism and that offends my delicate sensibilities-- so stop using that word!!!"), and like clockwork, the conspiracy clause is injected a few days later.

I imagine that in two more days, it will get blamed on Chavez/Israel/BFEE/DLC

we're at it...why do water landings always happen on the WATER? Coincidence? Not likely!!