Originally Posted by
vilas
...even if your airline didn't opt for it...
I very much doubt the RAT would have been an optional fit on the B757. As I said before, as an all-hydraulic design with no mechanical reversion the RAT would have been required to keep the hydraulics functioning in the case of dual engine and APU failure (e.g. fuel starvation). Even if bubs was able to navigate minus batteries with his whisky compass and outside horizon reference, it wouldn't do him any good if the flight surfaces stopped working (which without the RAT supplying hydraulic power, is exactly what would happen)!
...you don't care to know about Airbus but you want to comment about Airbus incidents. How correct is that?
There's an old saying that I adhere to along the lines of "I may disagree with what you are saying, but I'll vigorously defend your right to say it". I don't think any of us have the right to suggest members shouldn't contribute, even if we feel they're misinformed or misguided.