Hacker News Reader

Comment by unanswered | Hacker News Reader

> Many of these people reasonably thought they would die.

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.

View on HN

I was not on the plane so I don't know but if I was sitting on a plane and there was odd turbulence and then people at the window in front started exclaiming that the plane was on fire then I would be worried.

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.

> disintegrating jet engines sometimes cause problems by shooting fragments of turbine into the body of the plane.

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...

That page lists this 777 flight as having had an uncontained engine failure, but from photos, video and reporting so far, it's not clear it's uncontained.

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.

But I think we can agree that the passengers on the plane would not have known that information and would understandably and reasonably have been very worried and/or terrified.

Most engine failures are not this spectacular. If an engine is quietly shut down due to some fault, low oil pressure or high temperature or something, you'd likely never notice until the captain announced that you'd be landing at an alternate airport due to a techincal problem.

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.

If you are on the plane, you don’t care a bit about statistics. “Most” is not your concern. You want no further risk. And by definition, losing half of your engines presents a lot of risk.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com