161–170 of 483 posts
Lucky it didn’t happen half way. Could have been several hours on one engine and the other one shaking and on fire.
Luckily flight plans are always required to be within a certain number of minutes of a place to land, and are certified to operate on one engine for that period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on, we all know so they can go faster.
They could go faster with a single larger engine. Why do you think they went with two engines instead of a single larger engine? Redundancy.
Almost identical incident happened 3 years ago - the same type (B777-200), the same engine (PW4077), the same operator (United Airlines), the same side (right engine), the same failure (unconfined engine failure). https://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7&opt=0 I would not be surprised if the whole fleet of this type/engine gets grounded for some time.
And I’m supposed to fly on a 777-200 to Denver operated by United in just a few days. Yay!
Enjoy your flight and enjoy Denver. Get a donut from Voodoo for me.
Almost identical incident happened 3 years ago - the same type (B777-200), the same engine (PW4077), the same operator (United Airlines), the same side (right engine), the same failure (unconfined engine failure). https://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7&opt=0 I would not be surprised if the whole fleet of this type/engine gets grounded for some time.
And I’m supposed to fly on a 777-200 to Denver operated by United in just a few days. Yay!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By having airports on islands, or by pushing up the number of minutes that the engines/operator are certified for.
Note that ETOPS goes beyond just engine ratings, it also requires the operator meet all sorts of additional requirements (what if you DO have to divert - can you have the passengers retrieved within 24 hours, do you have food and shelter if you have to divert to a non-commercial airport along the flight path, are your technicians doing proper maintenance, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could go faster with a single larger engine. Why do you think they went with two engines instead of a single larger engine? Redundancy.
While redundancy makes it a moot issue, if I am not mistaken, 777s already use some of the most powerful engines available. As for how fast they fly, I believe it is mostly set by the speed of sound.
Fundamentally people can look it up themselves - 'ETOPS' - the redundancy requirement is a written regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you account for oceans?
By staying as close to land as required to ensure safety. until fairly recently, flights to Hawaii were largely served by 3- or 4-engine jets. It's only in the last several decades that ETOPS regulations have shifted enough to allow regular twin-engine service to Honolulu. See the 3rd response... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119921
I like how people are just standing next to pieces of plane and playing soccer in the background, going like just another day with pieces of plane falling out of sky [0] [0] https://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_3....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I’m supposed to fly on a 777-200 to Denver operated by United in just a few days. Yay!
The 777 has been flying for 25 years with almost no fatal accidents. Unless your flight will be flying over Russian anti-aircraft missile batteries or through a wormhole above Malaysia, you should be perfectly safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they loose the remaining one, all goes south: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1a2lSk_UI&feature=emb_logo
Not if you have Sully in the cockpit [1]. They can still glide. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger