ALASKA AIR PILOTS, Crew Say NTSB Crash Story Is 'BS' : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

2-27-00 This is from Sightings

Alaska Air Pilots, Crew Say NTSB Crash Story Is 'BS'

Notes From John Quinn & Anthony J. Hilder's Newspad

Alaska Airlines pilots and crews aren't buying into the National Transport Safety Board bureaucrats' "cover-up story" on how AK Air's Flight 261 went down for the final count killing all 88 aboard.

Scuttlebutt has it that employees are deeply disturbed by the fact that the airline isn't furnishing any information to their staff people. An inordinate amount of personnel have been absent the first three weeks after the crash due to "emotional trauma."

"We're not buying the NTSB's Bull S..T" says one source. "The Feds have "tossed a foul ball & we are not hitting it."

The airline's mechanics are near-unanimous in the belief that the "air holocaust" wasn't because of any "faulty" stabilizer screw. In the words of one mechanic with Alaska Air: "that's so much hokum."

Moreover, in talking to one employee who knew Fl. 261's pilots Bill Tansky and Ted Thompson, they said: "They were two of our most experienced pilots." But when asked why they headed out to sea; turning away from the airfield at Point Mugu with its open and immediately accessible runway, they didn't have an answer. "I just don't know why they bypassed the runway, no one here can explain it," our source divulged with tears in their eyes. "I was crying for a week and I haven't been able to sleep ever since. I knew eight of the people on board personally. They were my friends."

We know for certain that a number of the Hilder/Quinn articles were circulating in various Alaska Airline offices around the country. Apparently some of Alaska Air's flight attendants made copies. They have been seen from Puerto Vallarta to Anchorage and all spots in-between.

The articles, including, "It Defies All Logic," have been picked up by other major websites; including Robert Sterling's, Jeff Rense's Sightings , Kent Steadman's and Doug Pooley's FlashRadar. The articles have been seen by millions at this point.

Attorneys across the country representing those who died needlessly in the crash have also been availed of the information and are taking a CLOSE LOOK at what was going on at the U.S. Navy's Pt. Mugu Weapons Testing Center on February 1st.

One of our sources at Alaska Air says: "When I came into the employee room their were five people reading it at the same time. I was busy and didn't have time to read it until the next day." The source said: " One girl (a flight attendant) was concerned that we are not being given the truth."

Our contact went on to say: "Everybody is asking why we (the flight) didn't land at Point Mugu. They had plenty of opportunity. But who knows what happened? They're not telling us anything."

Three weeks later, it's still "mum's the word." As to the NTSB's "SPIN STORY," the widely-prevailing view within Alaska Air is-- "NO WAY! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY." c 2000 NewsHawk Inc./A.J. Hilder

From NewsHawk Inc.

-- Zdude (, February 27, 2000


Okay. So the AA pilots and crews don't buy the explanation so far -- the "SPIN STORY" -- of the NTSB as to the cause of the crash of AA Flight 261. How many of them? This is the first I've ever heard PUBLISHED of the professionals not falling into line with the course of an NTSB investigation (though admittedly I don't track such things) and to me it represents a sort of CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE in the authorities overseeing air safety. NO? "An inordinate amount of personnel have been absent the first three weeks after the crash, due to " emotional trauma". How many is that?

For now, this is totally unrelated to the causes behind the rumored America West stewardess strike ... but how quickly could/would/will opne feed into the other if more MD-80's (or 737's) continue to experience "an inordinate number of problems". At the very least, this story, if true, more than justifies our continuing program of practiced skepticism of the party-line, aka Offical version, aka SPIN STORY. It also puts the ball back in the court of those posters -- some of whome were airline pilots and avionics experts -- who ranted (or encouraged) the rest of us doubters to gaze wide-eyed at the open process of investigation, &simply sit back and await the published NTSB report .....


-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 27, 2000.

Thanks for an interesting post. Have no idea if story above has any validity. As the authors say, it is scuttlebutt... I do know that it has been reported that Northwest Airlines say the shavings from tail parts on DC9s (MD80 related) were from repairs and not damage. See thread below:

-- Carl Jenkins (, February 27, 2000.

No self-respecting work person would leave shavings of anything. They would be vacumned up. They also perform a walk down to ensure no mechanics tool was accidentally left on board, that might cause a problem in flight.

-- Second (, February 27, 2000.

Don't put too much emphasis on the aircraft turning away from a close landing site.

Jets are very clean aerodynamically, and it takes some distance to descend from 15,000 feet or more. 30 miles at part throttle would be a rapid descent.

If the aircraft were damaged or having control problems, the flight crew would want to keep the airspeed pretty much in the middle of the flight envelope. Too low an airspeed can be worse than too high an airspeed. Diving for the closest runway would result in excessive airspeed, and/or additional airframe stress. (Spoilers or no spoilers).

Plus, at a high angle of attack, with flaps and gear extended, airflow can be disturbed around the tail. Flaps will also "lower the nose" somewhat when extended. The crew was already battling a "nose low" problem.

A turn out over the water to lose some altitude and see how it handled below 10,000 might be called for if things were not responding the way "the book" says it should.

If the pilot felt it necessary, he can declare an emergency and TELL air traffic control, closest airport, or the military that he is landing where he wants, when he wants. HE DOES NOT NEED ANYONE'S PERMISSION!

The problem on the Alaska Air flight may have gone bad so suddenly, the crew didn't have the opportunity to switch landing options.

Back to topic: There needs to be access granted to independant investigators. The NTSB is too involved with the FAA, the airframe manufacturers, and TPTB, they cabn not be relied upon to be unbiased in their "search for the truth".

-- WeNeed Independant Investigators (NoTrust@ntsb.crew), February 27, 2000.

Funny, I don't recall that the NTSB has published a final report to their investigation. And I still haven't seen any evidence that a Y2k bug is involved.

So when they found a problem in the stabilizer actuator, the FAA should not have ordered an emergency inspection of the fleet?

You guys don't want to believe CNN and other mainstream media, but swallow crap from the likes of Newshawk and Jeff Rense whole.

No matter, it's only 12 days until they ground the entire fleet, right Squirrel Hunter.

-- Mikey2k (, February 27, 2000.

Hey Mikey, the phrase Y2K appeared only once, and in your post. Can't you find another playground? There is more serious work going on in some of the posts.

-- Second (, February 27, 2000.

Second, You have obviously never worked in the civilian aviation field. I have never seen a "walkdown" for tools left behind. I have worked for a major airline in both line maint. and overhaul.

The next time you ride a great silver bird, lean over and pull up about 2 feet of carpet (it is just held in place with double sided tape). You will find metal shavings, dirt, food, and god knows what else.

I have found flashlights in fuel tanks, bucking bars in wing sections, various nuts, bolts, and wire running around loose in all sorts of locations in the aircraft.

I bet I could pull any aircraft from the gate of any airline and find metal shavings in enclosed spaces of the aircraft. I am not saying it is right, just it is a fact of life. (and I know where to look)

If you work on transport catagory aircraft, you use a drill daily. There are several hundred access panels (called doors) on an aircraft such as the MD80. Each door can have as many as 100 screws holding it in place. If a screw won't come out easily, you drill it out. Rivets are always removed with a drill. New rivets (or hylocs) are shot through holes that are drilled. One tries to minimize leaving any drill residue, but it is impossible to get it all.

And, regardless of what the airlines' PR people say, the bottom line is driving the decisions on maintenance. Contracting the labor out is cost effective for the airlines, but you get what you pay for. Rather than hire additional employees, many airlines now employ "temps" to maintain the planes you fly in. These temps (contract labor) just don't have the pride of ownership that you will find common among the full time airline employee.

Hell, the temps can not even pass ride on the planes they work on. Think about that........

-- Wishfull Thinking (NoTrust@ntsb.crew), February 27, 2000.

And thank you for that information Mr. Wishful...

I had thought to fly up to Albq. in a couple of weeks instead of driving. But with the information that it is a normal habit to leave such "clutter" laying in air liners..I do believe that I LIKE my car more than your commercial air craft. LOL (needed a good excuse to tell the lady ' there ain't no way'!). You just gave it to me..

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!


-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 27, 2000.

Dear Wishfull, My God!, Your God!, I presumed that since such safety factors were in place in my spectrum, they existed, in all. What a revelence to read your words and have to second think.

-- Second (, February 27, 2000.

Second said Hey Mikey, the phrase Y2K appeared only once, and in your post. Can't you find another playground? There is more serious work going on in some of the posts.

So here we have it, being chewed out for mentioning Y2k on this forum. Second has come in on the middle of the conversation, and as far as "more serious work" ? Hah!

-- Mikey2k (, February 27, 2000.

Of course the NTSB story is BS, and you heard it here first!

All you gubmint shill trolls out there remember, no matter how much you try to discredit us with your false disinformation and derogatory attacks, we're going to keep exposing the truth until it is brilliantly revealed in its full glory for the entire world to see!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 27, 2000.

Wishful Thinking, thanks for telling it like it is. I guess we all know deep down inside that the bottom line is cost. Companies want it all done faster, cheaper, and if you don't do it, they'll find someone who will.

Yes, the days of pride in workmanship are slowly coming to an end. But don't these airplane mechanics have to be certified at some level? Or, are they certified to some extent, but are being asked to perform procedures which are really at a more advanced level than they are qualified for?

There are 88 people who aren't with their family and friends today because big business has long since stopped operating the way that brought this country to its greatness and the envy of most of the entire world.

How many more people are going to have to die before shoddy workmanship, parts made in foreign countries, and the FAA's failure to properly censure problematic carriers comes to an end?

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 27, 2000.

Dear Hawk and Mikey, I apologize, for my distancing from Y2K stignma. I am a worn veteran, having been viewed as a "Nut". I moved to BFE, dirt roads. Didn't spend 100K's of money, didn't have it. Is there to be trouble ahead? Either I am a complete fool for stock piling, and should be locked away, or either those stocks are meant to substain my (wretched) human body, and my families. I do not know my lot in life at this point. I only felt I had to distance myself from the pre-roll over fear mongers, whose dogma was Y2K was the end of everything.

-- Second (h@ndinformation.cpm), February 28, 2000.

Yup -- I predicted ... what? after Feb. 15, 5 more before month end; but events outpaced me and there were 5 in the next week, so I was commmitted to ANOTHER 12-19 failures after (I think) Feb. 21. So far I believe there have been 4, more or less, but am not counting religiously. 48 hours to make up the rest. Agree, looks pretty bad for me ... yakkety yak. Mikey2k, can you say you're happy about the rates of failure? Do you maintain these are still within "normal" ranges and that there is no substance behind the Rense posting?



-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 28, 2000.

[ Fair Use: For Educational / Research Purposes Only ]


Both the airline and regulators dismiss the complaints and say the Fokker F-28 is safe to fly, despite one pilot's refusal to do so

Sunday, February 27, 2000

By Peter Sleeth of The Oregonian staff

Horizon Air -- the Northwest's largest regional airline -- suspended one of its top pilots after he refused to fly a commercial jet, saying it was potentially unsafe for the passengers and crew onboard.

Instead of grounding the 69-seat, Fokker F-28 airplane after Capt. Richard "Buddy" Stewart raised safety concerns Feb. 11, the company assigned another Horizon pilot to fly it. Horizon officials said that Stewart's concerns were unfounded and that the plane was airworthy.

Four days later, on Feb. 15, another pilot grounded the same aircraft in Billings, Mont., because of mechanical problems that caused vibrations. Horizon mechanics had to ship an entire jet engine from the airline's Portland repair center by truck and replace the bad engine, according to company officials. It was not returned to service for five days.

The plane, which carries the tail number N490US, is now in service again. Horizon has 22 Fokker F-28s to service five Western states and Canada.

Horizon and Alaska Airlines are affiliated, but the Fokker F-28 is a completely different type of airplane from the Alaska MD-83 that 'crashed last month off the California coast, killing all 88 people aboard.

Pilots have documented intermittent vibration problems with the Horizon plane 30 or more times since August, according to pilots, the pilots union and the company. Horizon said there was a six-month history of intermittent vibration problems in the plane -- vibrations that worried Stewart and other pilots -- but it was not serious, just an irritant for the pilots.

"If it was dangerous, we wouldn't let the plane fly," said Cheryl Temple, a spokeswoman for Horizon Air.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mitch Barker said regulators were aware of the vibration reports with the Fokker F-28 and had been aware of pilot concerns for months. On one occasion, an FAA inspector flew on the aircraft and noticed no serious problem.

"It is not a safety problem. It is an annoyance," Barker said, adding that, despite some pilots' concerns, "We're the agency that oversees safety."

However, at least two Horizon pilots told The Oregonian that they also considered the plane potentially unsafe. One pilot said he had heavy vibration problems with the jet that "scared" the veteran pilot.

Stewart declined comment. His suspension -- with pay -- was lifted shortly after he was sanctioned, a company spokeswoman said.

But, on Thursday, Horizon Air officials demoted Stewart from his status as a "check airman" -- a designation the FAA and airline companies confer on top pilots. A check airman is a senior pilot who is given evaluation responsibility over other pilots. He can remove them from service or grade them unsatisfactorily. It is the next highest level to a chief pilot.

The demotion occurred for reasons unrelated to his refusal to fly, Horizon Chief Executive Officer George Bagley said. In addition, he said, disagreement over the airworthiness of the plane was due to factors other than air safety.

"Here's what I think. I think it was a decent guy who is all wound up emotionally with several things and he made a judgment error," Bagley said.

Stewart is a union negotiator with the Teamsters union that represents Horizon pilots. Bagley maintained that Stewart has been under stress from struggling for two years to obtain a contract between the pilots union and Horizon. He said it was Stewart's behavior on the job that led to his demotion.

Don Treichler, an international representative for the Teamsters, said the demotion will be appealed. He dismissed the criticism of Stewart as "posturing."

"And furthermore, I believe contrary to George Bagley, these problems are all and completely safety-related," Treichler said.

When pilots note a problem with a plane, they report it in a maintenance log kept in the plane. A mechanic then fixes the problem and gives the go-ahead for the airplane to fly. It is like taking a car to a mechanic with a problem: The customer orders the repair, it is made, and the car is back on the road.

However, the Fokker F-28 kept coming back with similar problems. None of the reported vibration problems show up in FAA records because airlines are not required to report every service difficulty. Even the replaced engine was not reported to the FAA, Temple said.

Both the FAA and Horizon Air maintain the plane has always been safe for commercial passenger traffic, despite its history of vibration problems.

Stewart was put back on duty to fly company jets prior to his demotion and is now certified to fly for Horizon, Treichler said.

The other two Horizon pilots spoke with The Oregonian only on the condition their identities remain secret. They said they feared retribution from the company and would agree to be identified only as captains, both with at least 20 years of experience as pilots.

The pilots said the Horizon aircraft's vibration was typically localized in the cockpit, sometimes in the control column used to steer the jet.

"It was one of the most insidious and dangerous things that can happen with an airframe. It is very dangerous for airplanes to have control flutter," said one Horizon pilot who has flown the plane.

The pilot said he wrote up the vibration problems last year and learned they had not been fixed only after Stewart refused to fly the plane.

"I was furious," the pilot said. He acknowledged that the crash of Alaska Flight 261 had made pilots more aware than ever of any potential problem with an airplane. He said he believed part of the problem with the Horizon jet was problems with the mechanical workings in the tail of the plane.

Bagley called the pilots' assertions ridiculous and blamed the dispute on contract negotiations.

"You're telling me that four to six pilots per day have flown this plane in a nonairworthy condition? Now how ridiculous is that? It's totally ridiculous. It indicts every F-28 pilot in our company, the FAA, every licensed mechanic in our company," he said Saturday.

Treichler, the pilots union representative, said the safety issues are unrelated to union negotiations. "The issues you're discussing in the newspaper have nothing to do with negotiations," he said. "They have to do with safety."

Teamsters Local 747 of the Teamsters Airline Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, began representing Horizon pilots in 1997. A federal mediator has now stepped in, and more negotiations are slated for March.

Bagley acknowledged the plane did need work in the past.

"There has been a lot of work done on that airplane. It has had, as I understand it, a significant number, a variety of things, all of which were repaired over that period of time," Bagley said. "Some people connected all these things together. They only connected these things all together after Capt. Stewart made this an issue."

Horizon's Temple acknowledged a series of maintenance problems with the aircraft, including an incident last summer in which mechanics dropped the plane on its nose during maintenance work, causing damage to the plane.

Both pilots who had filed maintenance reports on the Fokker F-28 jet said they now believe the plane has been adequately repaired.

"I believe that ultimately they got to the problem, but it took them an extraordinarily long time," said one of the pilots. "And I don't approve of the way they got to it."

You can reach Peter Sleeth at 503-294-4119 or by e-mail at


-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (, February 28, 2000.

SH: Am I happy about the rates of failure? No, I'm not happy. It would be better that 88 lives were not lost.

As far as the number of incidents/emergency landings in the news, I think that two factors are in play here.

First, the media is focusing on this issue contradicting claims on this forum that a coverup is occurring. Ordinarily, the safe landing of an aircraft with no loss of life is not newsworthy, regardless of how much the crew may have sweated to pull it off.

Second, the crews are being more conservative. I think a major component in the AS261 disaster was the attempt by the crew to troubleshoot the problem and in the confusion of trying to do that and fly the airplane they made the mistrim problem even worse, setting themselves up for the final disaster. I imagine that other pilots are thinking this and if a problem occurs they are more likely to declare an emergency and land the aircraft ASAP.

Fewer incidents have been reported over the last few days. Possibilities (1) they aren't occurring or (2) the media has slipped back to their normal mode of not reporting incidents of this type without loss of life. Personally, I suspect that (1) applies. Truly random events are not going to be evenly spaced.

A little quiz about odds. Imagine you just flipped a coin and the last 10 times it came up heads. No, it's not a trick coin with two heads or an unbalanced coin and you didn't employ any tricks to make the coin come up heads 10 times. What are the odds that heads will come up on the next toss of the coin?

-- Mikey2k (, February 28, 2000.

mikey, simple

50:50 if you're talking normal, real-world odds, just the same as any other time you toss a coin.

Of course, if you're a doomer there are NO odds. Its a 100% certainty, given that you KNOW, through top quality information (rense, newswire etc) that the outcome of the next toss will be . .

a) influenced by a shady gubbmint black-op, which will be spun and covered up, but will lead to the outcome being just what you DIDNT want it to be.


b) bad.

Now quit asking silly questions

-- mathmaster (, February 28, 2000.

What an exposi in that article, scary

-- no fly (sort@it.out), February 28, 2000.

Beg to differ Mikey. If the events were random, I could not have called the uptick, period, with any accuracy. Given the lifespan and track-record of the MD-80 -- reputedly the safest plane in the air -- the probabilities were entirely against MY accurately predicting 5 more incidents before the monthend, or the additional 3-4 beyond that 5, that we've had since ca. Feb. 21 .... and THE OTHERS I predict we will continue to see at this aggravated rate or worse. 8 more before tomorrow? No. Grounding fleet by March 15 or whatever I said? Hmmm. Maybe not! Certainly not! But its disingenuous to look at the facts in late of my AMATEUR's lame, sorry-assed prediction, and try to shrug it off ex post facto as a toin coss. Oops. Coin toss.

It's gotta be (in my estimation) Y2K.

But I stand to be corrected.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 28, 2000.

Take your seat at the head of the class, Mathmaster, with extra credit for correctly analyzing the irrational doomer version of the answer.

SH, what is your accuracy, exactly? Let's go back and see what your predictions on incidents were, exactly on this thread And the fleet was to be grounded by the 10th.

-- Mikey2k (, February 28, 2000.

Second said, "No self-respecting work person would leave shavings of anything. They would be vacumned up. They also perform a walk down to ensure no mechanics tool was accidentally left on board, that might cause a problem in flight."

Second, it is purely naive and wishful thinking to believe that repair people would not leave metal shavings and clean up after their work was finished. I agree that "self-respecting" workers, and professionals would be extremely vigilent and do a perfect job, but the reality is that there are many workers and professionals who aren't "self-respecting" enough, or put into other words, sloppy, at least some of the time.

Take surgeons for example. Wouldn't you agree that these doctor's job is at least as important to our lives and well being as airplane repair workers? Well, I know for a fact that sometimes surgeons leave "tools" inside the bodies of surgery patients, things like sponges etc. They're supposed to count all of the tools/supplies carefully before sowing the patient back up, but sometimes surgeons get sloppy too, they're humans. They might be distracted that day for whatever reason, or they might have to hurry up too much to meet their schedule that day. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Show me one industry, one field where there is no sloppiness at any time ever, and I'll start believing in Santa Claus.

-- Chris (#$%^&, February 28, 2000.

Mikey, you and SH both make some sense to me, I'm just trying to get clarifications.

You said, " Possibilities (1) they aren't occurring or (2) the media has slipped back to their normal mode of not reporting incidents of this type without loss of life. Personally, I suspect that (1) applies. Truly random events are not going to be evenly spaced."

What you seem to be saying here, is that each time I board an airplane I stand a 50:50 chance of landing safely. It's probably not what you meant, so why the coin toss analogy? Are you saying that airplane safety/proper functioning is left to chance? That's what it looks to me from your quote above.

-- Chris (#$%^&, February 28, 2000.

You're right Chris, finding metal shavings on an aircraft is as normal as finding sawdust in a sawmill. No matter how much cleaning up they do, there will still be traces.

What I don't understand is why everyone is wasting time talking about shavings when they had nothing to do with the cause of the accident. The shavings on Flight 261 are partial EVIDENCE of the cause, and they may provide a clue as to what happened. But for these airlines to pretend that their planes are now safer than 261, just because they cleaned off the shavings, is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm sure the NTSB investigators have already torn apart the autopilot system, and perhaps even found the cause, but unfortunately we will never hear about it.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

Of course the odds are not 50% of a safe landing. Humans work to improve the odds of the desired outcome and mostly succeed making air travel safer than travelling by car. But humans are not perfect and components fail so disasters happen.

What I should have said that it is UNLIKELY for incidents to be evenly spaced. Certainly it is possible to receive long sequences of alternating heads and tails, but it is more and more unlikely the longer the sequence.

Similarly when you toss the weighted coin or a loaded dice, occasionally the wrong side will come up. These occurances are not likely to be evenly spaced. Of course, if they are too closely spaced you check to see if the weight fell off.

No, a safe airline flight is not left entirely to chance, but there is a certain element of risk.

Funny, I never saw anything that indicated that the response to finding shavings was simply to sweep them away. They replaced 18 of the jack screw assemblies some of which were needed and some were precautionary. click on compliance status and findings ....

No the NTSB has not issued their final results of their investigation. The emergency AD issued by the FAA was intended to load the dice further in the direction of safety.

Perhaps the NTSB have inspected the autopilot to see if it has any clues in non-volatile memory. If & when the NTSB determines a cause they will announce it but I doubt that it will make the conspiracy theorists happy.

-- Mikey2k (, February 28, 2000.

Hmmmm. Another MD-80 emergency landing today: Feb. 28 -- see thread above. According to the article that makes 3 emergency landings this week. seven more by tommorrow, per my prediction? I don't think so. Grounding of the series by March 10? Certainly not. But the point of my forecasts is not for ME to be right .... is it? But for the board to have some kind of standard -- even an ignorant or arbitrary one -- by which to guage the significance of the events that DO unfold. I reiterate ... (out of my element admittedly) this level of incidence (and still continuing) hardly gives one occassion to dismiss our of hand the possibility of a NEW factor at work -- the only Unified Theory availble: Y2K.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 29, 2000.

Having NO standard is better than an incorrect one, just as it's better for an aircraft's attitude display to show nothing rather than that the aircraft is in level flight when it's upside down. If the display indicates nothing then the pilot will use another instrument.

If there is a common cause to all of these incidents (and no indication that there is) why is Y2k the only one? Answer: it's the only one you're willing to consider.

-- Mikey2k (, February 29, 2000.

Not so: in fact, it's the only one my layman's grasp has any exposure to, and it's an all-too-convenient Unified Failure Theory for these various incidents -- and they have been various. I'm more than willing to hear others. Are there others? Can you suggest something that would make hydraulics systems sieze up, landing gear stick, stabiliizers jam, cockpit air-conditioning units overheat, etc? Not trying to be coy with you Mikey: I'm not reviewing my link-list of MD- 80 stories as I type this -- working from memory. If you have an explanatory hypothesis, clue us in.


-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upin.acellrelaytower), February 29, 2000.

If you must have a unified theory for these accidents, then I'd say that Y2k is as good a theory as the number of solar flares or the current alignment of Jupiter with Mars.

Personally I don't think that there is a common cause.

-- Mikey2k (, February 29, 2000.

You believe that I believe.

More next month. Just wait!

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 29, 2000.

mmmmmm.... I don't think so.

-- Mikey2k (, February 29, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ