Aser
Don't you would prefer the engine out than the fuel leak?
If you mean would I prefer an engine failure to a catastrophic fuel leak / fire in the cabin, then yes of course.
But like I said, I would prefer neither.
It seems fairly unlikely to suddenly get a catastrophic fuel leak / fire in the cabin when the aircraft was OK on despatch. Unless of course you are a military aircraft being shot at (which is what's behind not-biting-Nicks comments about US Military specs I suspect)
The only time you are likely to get a catastrophic fuel leak / fire in the cabin is when you crash - which could be due to that engine failure.
Yes I know its got cat A performance and all that good stuff but you only get cat A performance when you operate it to cat A. Someone once said that the difference between a professional pilot and a private one is that the latter flies outside the "avoid curve" whereas the professional one flies in it. There is a lot of truth in that and of course when you are inside the curve, chances are you have a high power setting - that's just when the suction pressure is at its maximum and that air leak could get you.
It all boils down to probabilty of occurence I suppose. If I have the choice between an engine failure on takeoff every couple of thousand hours or a catastrophic fuel leak / fire once every 50 lifetimes I might go for the latter.
And of course what Nick has failed to mention is that the rogue anti-vibration generator that fell off (along with a big chunk of fuselage skin) ended up perilously close to the sponson fuel tank, so suction system or not its still possible to end up with fuel in the cabin (in this case because the fuel tanks are higher than the cabin floor)
Its good to be back...
HC
ps cdn - I think you'll find that the anti-vibe generators are still installed on the 92's - the vibe level without them is unacceptable. But perhaps they are welding some steel plates around them to take the stress.....(only joking!)