From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:05 References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1995.9@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Sean Namazi <email@example.com> wrote: >It was my understanding that The China Air 747-400 which ran out of >runway in Hong Kong (Kaitak?) and ended in the bay was declared >totalled due to immersion in salt water, despite being in very good >shape otherwise. So my question is: what was really different in >the case of the JAL incident at SFO? Also, what are the deciding >factors in such cases? Actually, the aircraft was totaled because the tail was blown off with explosives (it was a hazard to landing aicraft), not just because of the salt water immersion. -- Terry firstname.lastname@example.org "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."