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