XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks, rec.arts.poems   
   From: spope33@speedymail.org   
      
   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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)