"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:lLZKg.6888$SZ3.5001@dukeread04...
It would be nice if, like the USNavy, a professional crew,
with the finest cameras filmed every TO and landing at
every airport. These guys were just some airport bums with
a camera and pickup truck. So the camera isn't stabilized,
at least it was there.

What's your point? Just having the camera there doesn't make it "great".
It just means the camera was there. And besides, it's not like you can even
buy a video camera today that doesn't have some sort of image stabilization.
I'm not talking about professional standards here, which if you'd bothered
to actually READ my post you'd understand.

Had there been water ingestion, you would have seen steam.

I saw LOTS of stuff that could've been steam. Again, the video quality is
not sufficient to know what did or did not happen.

Also, the engine was well above the water when it was
visible.

Again, what's your point? The engine didn't shut down when it was visible.
What you can see when it WAS visible is irrelevant.

There was no person on the airplane to shut it
down. The pilot had come a long distance, northern Maine to
Atlantic City.

Again, so what?

Water ingestion doesn't always kill a turbine engine,

I never said it does.

they run just fine in heavy rain.

I never said they don't.

Even being submerged doesn't
always kill the engine, it is still running after a 400 mph
crash into the Pacific Ocean and comes up to menace Tom
hanks in CASTAWAY and Hollywood certainly has the best
technical advisors, cameras and they would not just make
things up [humor].

Whatever. You just managed to post a 4K article that failed completely to
add *anything* to the discussion. Good job.