• helenslunch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Weird, it says “emergency landing” in the headline.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      after the aircraft experienced engine issues.

      There is an article that expands on what the headline says. The link is there in the title. You could click on it….and …I dunno, read it maybe.

      • helenslunch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The article was irrelevant to the fact that emergency landings happen all the time.

        No one was suggesting that there wasn’t an engine issue.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          But you’re comparing to a health emergency which is not the case of this one. That’s false equivalency and the wrong argument here. The article is relevant. It’s the topic. it states what kind of emergency landing it was. It was not a health emergency.

          • helenslunch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It is not any type of equivalency, false or otherwise. The comment I replied to was simply stating that emergency landings are not necessarily indicative of some sort of deficiency of the plane. I simply elaborated on it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Please go away.

            • Smoogs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              No. You go away and stop spreading misinformation and derailing from what actually is being discussed. You brought nothing of value to this discussion and acting in poor faith.