Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (4401)	11/19/2001 11:59:15 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14610

My recollection of the report was that this particular plane had been subjected to "unusual" turbulence, in an incident quite some time ago (many years). My point is that perhaps there was a subset of conditions for this plane that went undetected, making it an "accident waiting to happen". I would think that analysis of the tail and stabilizer should put any speculation about that to rest either way. But if the weakness of the stabilizer occurred after the first turbulence encounter, then I would also begin to question the manufacturing process or the materials used. As to the engines, it was reported that after the tail section broke away, the plane was then subjected to violent movements that caused the engines to break away. Interestingly, if the "excess" turbulence was caused by the air traffic controllers giving the pilot clearance to take off outside of the time frame specified, the manufacturers could argue that the plane was put under undo stress because of it. That would possibly work to their advantage WRT litigation. And of course we all know that the Federal Government cannot be sued.