From: chris@airdata.socal.com (Chris J. Davis)
Subject: Re: Aplogy to Robert Dorsett & More on El Al Disaster
Organization: Euroflight Aviation and Computing Corporation, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.214334.23045@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>I first would like to apologise to Robert Dorsett. 

Derek Cedillo posts an apology and then continues in response to
werner@cs.utexas.edu:

>Now back to the discusion:

[ 99 lines deleted ]
>The cross sectional area of a turbofan such as the CF6-50 (GE's 747-
>200 powerhouse-BTW what is the PW engine?  it's an old J line right?)

it's a JT-9D i believe (Robert?)

[...]
>It would take a lot more than one bird in an engine to cause serious
>problems like an uncontained failure.

doesn't this depend on the size/mass of the bird?  what about one _big_
bird?  (no derek, not the one on sesame street).  does anyone have some
actual _facts_ on this?

[...]
and derek continues in the same sincerely apologetic tone:

>And what do you know?  The key word here is "UNLIKELY", not "impossible".
>My, you have a lot of hostilities pent up inside don't you? 
>Before you explode, read more carefully.

[...]
let's join derek now as he sets himself up for his next apology:

>Bah! You piss me off right here!
>Boy if I was an owner of any type of firm, I would sure hope you never
>worked for me.  You make me sick.

>>>very heavy, especially when filled with cargo.  Without much altitude
>>>its hard to recover, actually it is a 1/billion chance.

where does this probability data come from?  the 747 is certificated to
continue climb following the failure of a single engine after V1.  what
climb/descent rate can be expected after a double-asymmetric failure?
what i am curious about is why there would be a controllability problem
other than difficulty in maintaining altitude.  doesn't failure of both
engines on one side result in a configuration analogous to single-engine
failure on a twin jet (e.g. a 737, A300, 757 etc)?  clearly the loss of
half the available power on a 747 is more serious than on a 737 because
the 737 will climb after losing 50% of its power, while the 747 is only
certificated to do so after loss of 25% of its power.  does anyone have
some actual data to shed some light on this?  (note the sci. hierarchy).

>More rambling?  You wanna try it?  Are you calling 747 pilots liars?
>This is where my info is from.  What about any of yours?  All your cases
>are unsubstantiated.

ok derek, since this is a science group, and you are throwing around
accusations such as the above, please go ahead and name just one of
your 747 pilot sources.

>Why do you only flame? Nothing substantial to day?  Look who is talking
>about taking away keyboards.  Grow up Werner, this is a discussion group
>for reasonable people.  Your rediculous flames are for alt.flame.  If 
>you have a legitimate gripe about something I said, I'll listen.
>But it just better be substantiated somehow.  You talk about babytalk and
>inexperience when you cant back up anything you say.  

derek, your paragraph above says it all.  i suggest you read it again,
then maybe this discussion can be shifted back to the well qualified
scientific level at which it began.  imho, discussion at that level is
far more interesting than the contentless tone of your recent efforts.

>	I would apprciate it, and I'm sure most others would too, 
>if discussions could be kept to talking about the situation and
>avoiding flames.  Dont' flame people, discuss the issues. 
>Derek H Cedillo

i caught the tail end of a news report the other day that announced
that the flight data recorder had been located.  was any of the data
readable?
-- 
  __       __  o  __
 |   |__| |__| | |__   Chris J. Davis INTERNET: chris@airdata.socal.com
 |__ |  | |  \ | ___|                     UUCP: hatch.socal.com!airdata!chris
 EuroFlight Aviation, Los Angeles, CA     ICBM: 34deg12'35"N 118deg29'21"W