Same type of plane( yes different type of engines) , same type of issues while landing. I am not suggesting that sfo crash was due to engine failure. I am just suggesting that we all should wait for the investigation to conclude.
You know, there's not a single thing about your comment that's useful.
>Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.
Yeah, I know. That's the reason for the question.
This specific item has been addressed by people who know this stuff. They didn't indicate it was abnormal. How is that not useful?
Who? You're some guy on the Internet. I should take it on faith that you can tell who is knowledgeable and who is a blowhard?
> have commented on it and not said it was anything unusual, so, yes, I'd say it's reasonable.
Again, instead of providing a fact I have to trust the judgment of a person I do not know.
> Jet engines don't change their output on a dime.
It should have been obvious from my question that I know that much about turbines. Do you have any information specific to 777 engines or something comparable?
>Experts commenting on their field of expertise don't count for anything, or what?
They might. It depends who they are. I don't always believe everything I see on television or the Internet. Sometimes I like to know their reasoning.
Boeing, the same company who months ago reviewed their 787 batteries and found no reason to ground their planes?
The initial conclusions from the US National Transportation Safety Board is that the engines were functioning normally; i.e. a totally different issue while landing. I doubt a Seoul-San Francisco flight in mid-July was likely to have experienced the same unusually cold temperatures that resulted in the BA038 fuel droplets freezing (over Siberia in January) either