The downvotes begin from “meh”. Many of these people reasonably thought they would die.
What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred.
What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred.
Believing that the loss of single engine in this kind of plane will lead to a crash is not reasonable. It's a failure which happens all the time. If this sort of failure usually led to a crash then planes would be falling out of the sky all the time, which even someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself) should very well know doesn't happen.
Saying otherwise is literal FUD. Our society seems to run on FUD now though so par for the course I guess.
In addition disintegrating jet engines sometimes cause problems by shooting fragments of turbine into the body of the plane. There are very valid reasons to be worried even if you know you have one working engine.
You have contradicted yourself by saying, "someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself)" and also saying, "It's a failure that happens all the time." Knowing that the engine failures happen all the time is not something that someone with very little knowledge would know.
In short your comment was not well thought out.
I'm not sure I'd say they happen "all the time" but engine shutdowns are not uncommon. Read avherald.com for a few weeks to see just how many technical problems come up routinely in commercial aviation.
There is an unfortunate famous incident in Amsterdam decades ago where a 747 cargo plane lost an engine, and the ejected material caused additional damage. Then the engine sheared off, striking another engine. Then it became a disaster scenario.
Myself an no other passengers on any plane are comfortable with losing an engine. Only people sitting at home, crunching numbers, are unconcerned.
The most famous uncontained engine failure incident was the 1989 Sioux City crash of United 232, where exploding fan blade bits took out all hydraulic lines and the plane became nearly uncontrollable. The pilots almost got it on the ground using only engine thrust to control the plane, but it crashed as it came in and 112 people died.
Similar hydraulic problems arising from uncontained engine failure caused Baikal Airlines Flight 130 to go down in 1994 (125 fatalities), and a 1984 Aeroflot crash (110 fatalities).
Shrapnel from exploding engines also killed two passengers on Delta 1288 in 1996, and led to a fatality in in a 1973 incident on National Airlines 27.
Uncontained engine failure is not common and it's very serious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_engine_failure#Notable...
Contained failures mean the disintegrating parts don't exit the engine casing, they either remain inside the engine casing or exit out the back. The reporting so far is that all parts exited out the back, not through the engine casing in a way that could have caused catastrophic damage to other parts of the plane.
It may be technically true, but words matter and "meh" is just an ignorant thing to type out in this situation.
All these emotionless HN comments - most of us would be terrified in that position.
Some types of engine failures I imagine would correlate with failure of the other engine, other types not so much. Is there data on this?
And many passengers on the flight casually dismissed it as well from what the article says.
Also, sometimes engines fail silently and passengers don’t even realize it since air keeps blowing through it to keep it spinning. You likely have been on a plane with a downed engine and didn’t even realize it if you fly regularly. You were fine.
>Just as a practical example of reduced range with an engine out, We departed Santiago, Chile in a 747 freighter with enough fuel to reach Miami. During the climb out we lost an engine. We elected to continue rather than dump fuel and return. However, because we could not reach our intended cruising altitude, the increased fuel burn meant we only had enough fuel to reach Panama City, Panama
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/how-far-ca...
See e.g. https://www.aerotime.aero/25513-reckless-pilot-flies-with-on... and https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83...
The FAA estimates that jet engines fail once per 375,000 flight hours. So no, you're not "likely" to have been on a plane with a downed engine.
If you wanna act so damn tough criticizing what may well be partially an emotional reaction of the part of these passengers, you should at least get your facts right.