Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 483 posts

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#431

Post by sandworm101 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #430
sandworm101 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of falling debris actually killing someone pales in comparison to the risks of it perhaps doing more damage onboard the aircraft. A loose part near/inside an engine is no longer doing its job and could cause more damage where it is. And the ground is a big place. Drop a random pin in google maps. Then zoom in to see if it is actually on someone's head. This is lottery odds territory. Objects drop from aircra…

To add to that, 100 tons of spacerocks hit eath every day. I dont think 100 tons of parts fall of airliners daily. That being said, there was a russian spacecraft that disintegrated and hit someone house, in the middle of siberia bo less. So it does happen, but its freak ecen3ts territory.

Oh, if you are going to include manmade space-related objects there have been many deaths. Dig into how many Chinese rocket stages have landed on villages. If we include such things as "aviation" I would retract my above statements re debris. Rockets do sometimes fall on people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-keeps-dropping...

"It has happened many times before, including most infamously in 1996 when a Long March 3B rocket veered off course shortly after a launch and crashed into a village. Chinese officials reported six dead from the accident, although Western sources have speculated that hundreds of Chinese citizens may have died in the accident."

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#432

Post by sandworm101 »

codingdave wrote: post #169
valuearb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another way of looking at it is that after flying and accumulating 25 years of wear and tear without major incident, we now have seen a repeatable flaw that these aircraft may encounter due to their age.

>> a repeatable flaw that these aircraft may encounter due to their age.

There are hundreds of flaws. Aircraft are not perfect. Any large airframe sees lots of little things break every year. That's what inspections and maintenance are for. But the system is designed so that such things never add up into something really bad. Be worried about the aircraft without flaws. To me, that means it either never gets used or isn't being inspected properly.

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#433

Post by willyt »

tjohns wrote: post #321
willyt wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Declaring an emergency” is US specific. The rest of the world doesn’t recognise this phrase you have to use either “Mayday” for immediate danger to life or “Pan Pan” for less severe problems. As I understand it, “Declaring an emergency” is the equivalent of a Mayday and the US is very slowly switching away from this non standard phraseology.

"Declaring an emergency" isn't even correct in the US. The FAR/AIM only lists "mayday" and "pan pan". (Yes, it's oddly common here in the US for some reason. I think some pilots are afraid to say the "m" word.) That said, controllers are human. As long as you get the message across somehow they'll do everything they can to help, even with non-standard phraseology. Of course, the risk of non-standard phraseology is th…

For sure, I think in an English speaking country you would probably get your point across. They would most likely come back with asking for confirmation that you are declaring 'mayday', but you would probably cause varying degrees of confusion in many other countries.

I suppose the aim is to make it absolutely clear as quickly as possible that you want ATC to press the big red button labeled 'crash' which sets off the alarms in the airport fire station and causes other controllers to start diverting flights away and telling planes on approach to go around.

These two podcast episodes about the last major crash at Heathrow are pretty interesting if you want to know what happens in ATC during something like this. The fire appliances were already en route before the plane hit the ground. http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-... http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-...

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#434

Post by airhead969 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #430
sandworm101 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of falling debris actually killing someone pales in comparison to the risks of it perhaps doing more damage onboard the aircraft. A loose part near/inside an engine is no longer doing its job and could cause more damage where it is. And the ground is a big place. Drop a random pin in google maps. Then zoom in to see if it is actually on someone's head. This is lottery odds territory. Objects drop from aircra…

To add to that, 100 tons of spacerocks hit eath every day. I dont think 100 tons of parts fall of airliners daily. That being said, there was a russian spacecraft that disintegrated and hit someone house, in the middle of siberia bo less. So it does happen, but its freak ecen3ts territory.

False equivalency. 100 T of diffuse material reaching Earth, likely burning up, isn't the same as or even remotely comparable to parts falling off aircraft due to man-made negligence. Jettisoning honeycomb cowling sections because a particular model of engine is relatively unreliable, through design, manufacturing, or maintenance, isn't an excuse for not fixing it or not using a better engine if it cannot be fixed economically.

Could you proofread and type correctly so we understand what you're saying? I can't read all of what you're saying.

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#435

Post by dghlsakjg »

subhro wrote: post #335
dghlsakjg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying on one engine is one thing. Flying one engine while the other is on fire due to unknown causes is another. Still newsworthy in my book. Source: also a pilot

Respectfully disagree. When you are flying with one turbofan, it does not matter why the other engine is on fire. The checklist says, shut off the fuel, if W&B allows, move fuel off the wing and drown the engine in CO2. Source: Over 3500 hours turbine time.

Im not saying that following the checklist is particularly hard, or the mechanics of what you need to do is outside the skill level of any competent pilot.

I’m saying that practicing engine-outs/fires is psychologically different than bringing a flaming aircraft safely to the ground with several hundred souls on board.

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#436

Post by alamortsubite »

leesalminen wrote: post #116
terramex wrote: post #113

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!

If you're riding in an automobile to/from the airport, you have reasonable cause for concern.

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#437

Post by airhead969 »

galangalalgol wrote: post #426
wavefunction wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@sandworm How about a third option where neither the plane nor the debris falls?

I'm sure people PW is working on that, but the failure rates on commercial aircraft parts are already ridiculously low. Bad things will always happen.

"Bad things will always happen" is a despicable shrug mentality. Bad things happen when people don't have their acts together in design, engineering, manufacturing, maintenance, and operation. The failure rates should be striving for zero, unlike the stunts Boeing has pulled on 737NG, MAX, and the 787.

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#438

Post by o-__-o »

sandworm101 wrote: post #431
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to that, 100 tons of spacerocks hit eath every day. I dont think 100 tons of parts fall of airliners daily. That being said, there was a russian spacecraft that disintegrated and hit someone house, in the middle of siberia bo less. So it does happen, but its freak ecen3ts territory.

Oh, if you are going to include manmade space-related objects there have been many deaths. Dig into how many Chinese rocket stages have landed on villages. If we include such things as "aviation" I would retract my above statements re debris. Rockets do sometimes fall on people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-keeps-dropping... "It has happened many times befor…

Why compare two sovereign nations with vastly different safety regulations?

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#439

Post by tantalor »

dirkt wrote: post #401
rossdavidh wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and yet, very rarely done. That the correct technology for a news site (static content) was done, is the surprising part.

It would also be the correct technology for most sites - you don't need fancy Javascript for just the contents. Navigation, ads, etc., maybe, but not the contents itself. Most webpages could be perfectly useful with Javascript completely disabled. Sadly, many aren't.

Fancy JavaScript has nothing to do with serving static content. JavaScript itself is (or should be) static content anyway.

If you're talking about using JS to load content on page load, for whatever reason, that async content can also be static. For example some sites use the URL fragment (hash parameter) to load content, but the server does not receive this:

The fragment identifier functions differently to the rest of the URI: its processing is exclusively client-sided with no participation from the web server - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment

Re: United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine

#440

Post by o-__-o »

benhurmarcel wrote: post #415
underseacables wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what happenes when The fan blades fly off and hit the airplane?

To add to the topic, aircraft structure and systems are made to withstand the projection of those debris hitting with "infitite" energy. That means for every trajectory possible, it's considered that a part flies through everything in its path. The aircraft still has to land.

The wing is an exceptionally strong component of the aircraft. It’s usually the freak accidents where you hear of a fuel tank being ruptured or control or hydraulic lines being cut. In all of these accidents I bet there is wing damage but the plane is able to continue as usual

WW2 fighter planes anyone?

Post reply on HN