We desperately need to get pprune back to being a respectable website or else, we rename the website as you suggest.
Somehow or other we have to get rid of the postings from the promising and not-so-promising hysterics that are all too prevalent nowadays.
This is like having The Guvnor back but with a thousand assistants!
I'm sympathetic with your frustration at the amount of uninformed speculation and claims on this forum vs some of the more informed discussions on the BA038 thread in the later days.
Unfortunately, I fear that we may lose in the end if we attempt to curtial postings by newbies. Thus it took me two hours today just to read through the chaff before I post this single reply. In spite of this we can choose either to ignore the drivel or to counter it with advised replies.
I fear that we can never do anything to ensure that the casual reader gets the correct message, but at least we can help the more advised reader to understand.
I am reminded that at this time we still have no confirmation that an engine failure was involved in this accident. so all discussions to date are assumptive in this matter. We can go further with this if and when the official investigators comment
Whether the reverser was deployed before ground contact or during the breakup sequence can be determined in a number of ways - obviously the recorders, but also by traditional methods.
The traditional methods include examination of the two or three command links that must be satisfied to deploy a reverser in-flight. These include finding and detail examination (X-ray etc.) of pistons and valves to determine if they are in a commanded mode or not. THis will take a degree of laboratory examination to be certain.
If it was an uncontained engine failure, then it is luck, not aircraft design that makes an event either an incident or accident. It matters not, whether the control surfaces are hydraulically or mechanically actuated. If a piece of engine decides to pass through a hydraulic pipe(pipes) or cut a control cable(cables), the result is the same, reduced or no control. Put that at or around V1, Vr or climb, then it is down if the pilot flying to use every ounce of their training and experience to attempt to recover the situation.
Passenger aircraft are not designed to contain within its systems and controls, an uncontained engine failure. Thought and design goes into system redundancy, but you do not fire bits of hot engines at airframes and see what happens if?! You cannot predict which bit of engine will not be contained and where it is going to travel after it has left the engine casing and cowl. That is why engines are designed and tested to contain engine failures.
The above quote can not stand alone in front of the public. Else the public fearing that flying is a crap game will decide to control their own individual stakes by driving a thousand miles.
Containment/non-containment are addressed both at the engine level and at the aircraft level. All part 25 aircraft including the MD80 series have been designed to minimize the catastrophic effects of any uncontained engine failure. They meet this expectation by certified tried and true designs that apply the principals of redundancy, shielding and separation of critical aircraft control systems.
There is little sense in speculating further along this line until the investigators have had a chance to determine if:
did an engine actually fail?
was there an uncontainment?:
was there significant resulting damage to the aircraft?
I'm still awaiting any new facts such as close up photos or press releases by the investigating team.
Please continue to post along these lines.