Keep opinion to self
This just in from a fount o'knowledge that serves a US Airways hub:
The US Airways jet that landed in the Hudson River on Thursday had engine trouble on the same route two days earlier and the pilot considered an emergency landing, several passengers and CNN.com reported.
Any reason for sourcing this to passengers and a TV network, rather than to the NTSB's examination of the plane's maintenance records (which the AP used in its Monday story)?
The description of a stalled engine on fire raises questions about whether the aircraft should have been back in the air two days later. On Thursday, the pilot of Flight 1549 was forced to ditch his Airbus A320 into the Hudson River after the two engines failed from a “double-bird strike” moments after takeoff from LaGuardia.
Just a few quick questions:
1) What's the normal turnaround time to inspect (and fix if necessary) an A320 engine after a compressor stall?
2) What indications do you have that the procedure wasn't followed?
3) If you're still having trouble with (1) and (2), what makes your opinion about whether the plane "should have been back in the air" worth sharing?
That's not to say the "raises questions" idea is permanently ruled out, but it ought to be restricted to cases in which the questions can't be answered. In this one, the reporter's job is to find out the answers, and the desk's job is to flag suspect phrases until they're fixed.
By the way? It wasn't a "double-bird strike," which would be a strike by a double bird. It was a "double bird strike." We need "double" to modify "bird strike," not "double bird" to modify "strike."
The US Airways jet that landed in the Hudson River on Thursday had engine trouble on the same route two days earlier and the pilot considered an emergency landing, several passengers and CNN.com reported.
Any reason for sourcing this to passengers and a TV network, rather than to the NTSB's examination of the plane's maintenance records (which the AP used in its Monday story)?
The description of a stalled engine on fire raises questions about whether the aircraft should have been back in the air two days later. On Thursday, the pilot of Flight 1549 was forced to ditch his Airbus A320 into the Hudson River after the two engines failed from a “double-bird strike” moments after takeoff from LaGuardia.
Just a few quick questions:
1) What's the normal turnaround time to inspect (and fix if necessary) an A320 engine after a compressor stall?
2) What indications do you have that the procedure wasn't followed?
3) If you're still having trouble with (1) and (2), what makes your opinion about whether the plane "should have been back in the air" worth sharing?
That's not to say the "raises questions" idea is permanently ruled out, but it ought to be restricted to cases in which the questions can't be answered. In this one, the reporter's job is to find out the answers, and the desk's job is to flag suspect phrases until they're fixed.
By the way? It wasn't a "double-bird strike," which would be a strike by a double bird. It was a "double bird strike." We need "double" to modify "bird strike," not "double bird" to modify "strike."
posted by fev at 8:57 AM
2 Comments:
But it's just a question! Why don't you want the truth known??
Basement Cat does not want the truth known before his ebil plans take effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home