Just one correction, the plane is 23 years old (not 13), produced in 1979.
C.S.
>>> "Michael A. Burris" <yul@prodigy.net> 05/27/02 09:06pm >>>
AIRLINE / MICHAEL:
We might add for #7, a course sudden change...which could have been to =
avoid
another missile or a/c, yet I assume that if it were another a/c, they
would have gotten the warning siren. Somewhere I recall reading that it
broke into four pieces. A 13 year old plane isn't that old that it should =
it
fail like that. assuming its seen every type of weather imaginable in
that space of time. The disaster happened 20-30 minutes in flight at
35K. Might it have meant an aggressive climb-out to that altitude ---
maybe approaching stall warning? Lesson's learned from the AA suggest
that wake turbulence might sever the tail, but not slice the a/c into
four pieces at that height? And as for the fuel tank...wouldn't they
have upgraded their a/c since TWA 800? Well, CI has a poor safety
record. Devilment seems to be my leading theory...
--Mike Burris
Cambridge, Mass
>On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 12:54 PM, Michael A. Burris wrote:
>> Here is a recent story. It does seem very odd that an aircraft should
>> fail in this way. --- Mike Burris
>
>Well, there are the usual speculations:
>
>1. Bomb on board.
>2. Fuel tank explosion, like TWA 800.
>3. Shot down by Chinese missile.
>4. Shot down by Taiwanese missile ("Oops!")
>5. Mid-air with a previously undisclosed small a/c.
>6. Freak weather (gust overpressure) caused structural failure
>7. ???
>
>--
>Michael C. Berch
>mcb@postmodern.com