| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1988.1 | I heard on the news... | MR4DEC::LBERMAN | | Wed Sep 14 1994 10:18 | 8 |
| on the news last night, the reporter said that investigators
have narrowed down the reasons why this may have happened to
three options. All had something to do with the wing and the
engine. I missed the first two possibilities, but the third
was something about the engine going into reverse all by
itself...if that is possible...
|
| 1988.2 | add'l | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Wed Sep 14 1994 11:10 | 16 |
|
Yes, the current theory about the US Air crash is that one of the
engines did indeed go into reverse prematurely (by itself due to a
malfunction) and that caused the plane to do what it did.
When a plane lands, the engines are put into reverse to assist in
stopping the plane. It just happened that this time, one engine went
into reverse before the plane landed.
Apparently this problem was reported and fixed a few times on this
plane in the past (the television news showed log entries of the
pilot expressing difficulty over that particular piece of equipment
on that plane several times over the last year or so.) This time
though, they weren't so lucky.
Cindy
|
| 1988.3 | update | BIGFAB::T_SULLIVAN | | Wed Sep 14 1994 12:24 | 7 |
|
On the news this mornning the FAA has ruled out the reverser
theory, they were all in the right position. Also ruled out
was that one of the engines had come loose from the wing,
this had not taken place either. They may never know.
Terry
|
| 1988.4 | psychics with 20/20 hindsight? | MR4DEC::LBERMAN | | Wed Sep 14 1994 13:11 | 14 |
| thanks for filling in, Cindy.
This surely will present even more difficulties for US AIR to
stay in business, if the cause is verified to be the wayward
engine...especially with multiple reports of problems of a
similar nature on the same plane... Says a whole lot about
their maintenance
Regarding the basenote, though. It's really easy for people
to say after an accident or act of Nature that they "saw it in
a dream" or "predicted it." Was the alleged psychic's previous
knowledge of this disaster verified in any way? Just wondering.
ta!
|
| 1988.5 | | HOO78C::ANDERSON | He is like a china in a bull shop. | Thu Sep 15 1994 04:27 | 16 |
| A tiny nit, but I'll still pick it.
When an airliner lands the engines do not go into reverse, they would
destroy themselves.
There are deflectors which redirect the engine's thrust forwards instead
of backwards. Thus slowing the plane very quickly.
Were these to operate when the plane was flying slowly at a low
altitude it would stall, that is the air passing over the wings would
no longer provide enough upward thrust and it would fall out of the
sky.
Eyewitness accounts say that something very similar to this happened.
Jamie.
|
| 1988.6 | | TNPUBS::PAINTER | Planet Crayon | Thu Sep 15 1994 11:13 | 6 |
|
That's not a tiny nit, Jamie.
Thanks for the correction.
Cindy
|
| 1988.7 | :) | SMURF::WALLACE | Life's a beach, then you dive! | Thu Sep 15 1994 12:47 | 7 |
|
An even smaller nit.
>no longer provide enough upward thrust
^^^^^^
wings produce lift (but we knew what you meant)
|