I was talking in the eventuality that they would put someééand i did not knew about how the engine really worked, kthx for the info.usmarine wrote:
there is no grill.Roger Lesboules wrote:
As far as i know, even if there would be grill, most the of thing the plane would it would just go tru the grill and end up in the engine anyway.usmarine wrote:
what grill?
and the majority of an engines thrust is from the bypass air around the engine, not thru it.
tbh. if i would have been on that plane and someone would offer me a life as millionaire, i would also let them sue the company.
it´s just a simple money mechanism, that could even force the industry to rise the security standards. imagine, the company has to pay a big amount of money to the victims, maybe then a technology would be supported and researched, that would protect airplanes in the future, to prevent the loss of money in the future. security standards are rising, because failures are cost intensive.
it´s just a simple money mechanism, that could even force the industry to rise the security standards. imagine, the company has to pay a big amount of money to the victims, maybe then a technology would be supported and researched, that would protect airplanes in the future, to prevent the loss of money in the future. security standards are rising, because failures are cost intensive.
And maybe if you sue the shit out of every company there is they have even less for maintenance and the risk of the next plane you take will hit the ground is even bigger ... great reasoning[pt] KEIOS wrote:
tbh. if i would have been on that plane and someone would offer me a life as millionaire, i would also let them sue the company.
it´s just a simple money mechanism, that could even force the industry to rise the security standards. imagine, the company has to pay a big amount of money to the victims, maybe then a technology would be supported and researched, that would protect airplanes in the future, to prevent the loss of money in the future. security standards are rising, because failures are cost intensive.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
And to sue them helps?[pt] KEIOS wrote:
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
sense of entitlement + lack of self accountability + greed
Sure it does. This could even motivate to avoid such accidents in the future, by developing countermeasures. Even in personal greed, there could be a public benefit.Varegg wrote:
And to sue them helps?[pt] KEIOS wrote:
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
suing can help get to the whole truth, not just what we hear and read on the interweb. tbh, i dont buy the whole story. so yes, i would like to see a lawsuit.Varegg wrote:
And to sue them helps?[pt] KEIOS wrote:
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
As someone in the airline industry, what's your opinion?usmarine wrote:
suing can help get to the whole truth, not just what we hear and read on the interweb. tbh, i dont buy the whole story. so yes, i would like to see a lawsuit.Varegg wrote:
And to sue them helps?[pt] KEIOS wrote:
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
And btw Birdstrikes are pretty hard to avoid, i remember fitting a new £5mil engine to Harrier for the same reason. Oh and btw, Harriers have one engine, the pilot had a fun time
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
We have investigators in Norway to find the truth in those cases, we don't let greed decide if we get the truth from an airliner that had a incident ...usmarine wrote:
suing can help get to the whole truth, not just what we hear and read on the interweb. tbh, i dont buy the whole story. so yes, i would like to see a lawsuit.Varegg wrote:
And to sue them helps?[pt] KEIOS wrote:
you know, that there are technical standards for maintenance. so if they don´t have the money, to hold that standard, they would be out of business long before that
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
oh please.Varegg wrote:
We have investigators in Norway to find the truth in those cases, we don't let greed decide if we get the truth from an airliner that had a incident ...usmarine wrote:
suing can help get to the whole truth, not just what we hear and read on the interweb. tbh, i dont buy the whole story. so yes, i would like to see a lawsuit.Varegg wrote:
And to sue them helps?
anyway, fatherted.....
I don't buy the whole story. Things dont add up for me. Crew said they were doing the emergency checklist. Well, then why didnt you hit the ditching button? thats like the first thing for a water landing.
also, neither engine restarting is bollocks to me. I would have beleived that if the same engine didnt shit out a few weeks before without a bid strike.
I'm curious how many people actually contacted the lawyers compared to how many people the lawyers contacted...