171–180 of 483 posts
I have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24935/have-jet-...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_2708?wprov=s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not clear to me that you'd design a commercial turbofan aircraft with one engine if you eliminated reliability requirements. You need to feed air to the engine and, to the degree you have wings, might as well have 2 engines.
The idea that the engines need to sit on the wings like they do is something seems important, because it's so often done, but is actually not necessary. You can put a single engine in the tail, or on top of the cabin, or on the top of the cockpit, or underneath. They go on the wings because when you need two (for redundancy) it's a good place to put them for balance, and because it makes them nicely accessible for ma…
The MD-80 had two rear engines and was a fairly popular plane. A lot of smaller jets still have rear engines, too.
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!
At least it's unlikely to be that 777-200.
That quoted ground observer. Do they work for the NTSB or something? I am 110% certain that if I saw a plane on fire in the sky, I would not have the presence of mind to remember the term "cloud deck", let alone the rest of those details. Ground observer: "Good sir, I do say that the cloud deck was quite low so I didn't get a good look, but the engine was mildly louder than usual, and possibly had smoke, but perhaps…
That quoted ground observer. Do they work for the NTSB or something? I am 110% certain that if I saw a plane on fire in the sky, I would not have the presence of mind to remember the term "cloud deck", let alone the rest of those details. Ground observer: "Good sir, I do say that the cloud deck was quite low so I didn't get a good look, but the engine was mildly louder than usual, and possibly had smoke, but perhaps…
Today, of course, I'd be watching through my 500mm lens and taking pictures all the while. This was long before I got back into photography, though, and long before you could get a 500mm tele that didn't cost as much as a car. Even so, it was interesting, not frightening - remember that the sky is a long way away, and so are most things that happen there, weather notwithstanding.
Never did find out what actually happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that the engines need to sit on the wings like they do is something seems important, because it's so often done, but is actually not necessary. You can put a single engine in the tail, or on top of the cabin, or on the top of the cockpit, or underneath. They go on the wings because when you need two (for redundancy) it's a good place to put them for balance, and because it makes them nicely accessible for ma…
> it's so often done The MD-80 had two rear engines and was a fairly popular plane. A lot of smaller jets still have rear engines, too.
I have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same point could be made without sarcasm. Would you object, then?
Without the sarcasm it would just be restating exactly what the parent comment said. I agree with the OP: if we disapprove of posts that only say “same” or “me too” we should probably also discourage posts that dress exactly that in sarcasm.
You can hear the air/ground communications for this flight here via LiveATC.net. The pilots declare an emergency and then a mayday call beginning at 1:15 of the audio. https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1...
Curious, I had always heard it should be repeated 3 times, but here they’re consistently repeating just twice.