StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So, I'm going to depart on a flight in an hour, but I've read news about engine failures that happened recently, on the exact same aircraft! I'm really concerned, here is the news.

aviationweek.com/awincommercial/loose-engine-part-damaged-air-nz-trent-1000

www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-a ... 99201.html

Is it really safe?? I'm on, dunno if should give this out on net, but I'm on NZ178, so if that crashes then people will know how dangerous this service is. Why the fuck don't that take the whole service out? How can they really fly people in dangerous aircraft?

Here is another article

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-roll ... SKBN1EF18L

I don't think my flight has new engines, because they booked it for one day EARLIER, they are probably extending the life of dangerous engines to fatten up their bank accounts! I really hope the engines don't fail on my flight, surely that have to be safe for atleast another 6 hours

To be honest, I'm probably just overreacting and will be just fine. But posting stuff here clams me a little

I think it might actually crash, the sky just looks so bloody huge, and I just have such an awful feeling about this whole thing. I know the 787 9is a terrific airplane, but I'm really worried about those engines. I don't fly much so its EXTREMELY unlikely, but those news articles have me really worried. It's only a short flight, but still.. I hope the pilots are aware of the engine problems that happened recently..

Honestly you're most likely overreacting, in any western country there's countless rules and regulations that prevent airlines from putting a plane they know to be dangerous in the air and trying to bypass or ignore those rules will cause their operating license to be revoked (note that most if not all aircraft accidents happen due to unknown flaws not known).

Broomstick can probably explain the details but having a plane take-off with an engine known to be broken is unlikely at worst.

Well I'm boarding it now.. so I this is probably it..

You’ll be fine, Archinist. Stop being a pussy.

Probably late to the party, but you're overreacting.

Yes, an engine problem is serious, but it won't lead to the airplane falling out of the sky. You might wind up landing sooner than expected, but it will be a landing, not a crash.

Even if one engine entirely stopped working, a B-787 can be safely operated with just one. Obviously, you want to land soon rather than continuing on.

Back in the 1980's I was on an airline flight where, due to a bird strike, we had one engine completely stop working on take off. We all landed safe. Yes, it was scary, but no one (other then the bird) was injured, the airplane landed safely. Pilots spend a lot of time training in what to do for emergencies.

A lot of the flight delays have been NOT due to malfunctioning engines but to prevent in-flight malfunctions. That's a good thing. Sure, delays are annoying, but I'd rather be annoyed by a delay than have a problem, even a minor one, in-flight.

I anticipate you will have a routine, uneventful flight.

Broomstick wrote: ↑2017-12-30 08:58am Probably late to the party, but you're overreacting.

Yes, an engine problem is serious, but it won't lead to the airplane falling out of the sky. You might wind up landing sooner than expected, but it will be a landing, not a crash.

Even if one engine entirely stopped working, a B-787 can be safely operated with just one. Obviously, you want to land soon rather than continuing on.

Back in the 1980's I was on an airline flight where, due to a bird strike, we had one engine completely stop working on take off. We all landed safe. Yes, it was scary, but no one (other then the bird) was injured, the airplane landed safely. Pilots spend a lot of time training in what to do for emergencies.

A lot of the flight delays have been NOT due to malfunctioning engines but to prevent in-flight malfunctions. That's a good thing. Sure, delays are annoying, but I'd rather be annoyed by a delay than have a problem, even a minor one, in-flight.

I anticipate you will have a routine, uneventful flight.

correct me if I'm wrong but can't most modern passenger jets land fairly safely even if they had no functioning engines what so ever (aka they were pure gliders). Assuming there's a big enough airport (or equilevant) close enough of course.

Also can you say what would happen in an airline company would intentionally put a plane they knew had a high chance of crashing into the flightroster, I assume between the manslaughter (or what ever was local equilevant) charges and possible being shut down by the law enforcement, trying knownly and intentionally to bypass the international rules and regulations or aviation would carry such massive risk of ruining the company/person that no-one sane would ever try to do that.

The FAA would ground their fleet faster than you can say Gustav Mannerheim.

Lord Revan wrote: ↑2017-12-30 09:14amcorrect me if I'm wrong but can't most modern passenger jets land fairly safely even if they had no functioning engines what so ever (aka they were pure gliders). Assuming there's a big enough airport (or equilevant) close enough of course.

Oh, absolutely, but I've found that bringing those incidents up can cause more stress than they alleviate. There have been several instances of airliners suffering complete engine failure in-flight and being able to glide safely until the engines could be re-started. Two incidents involving unpowered airliners gliding to a safe, unpowered landing with only minor injuries (bumps and bruises, basically, and that during the evacuation, not the landing), and only minor damage.

And "close enough" is a greater distance than you think - Air Transat Flight 236 was roughly mid-way over the Atlantic when it lost all engine power due to fuel loss and it glided safely to Tenerife in the Canary Islands. In fact, they came in over Tenerife with excess altitude and had to circle prior to landing.

Or, as I was taught in flight school: if your engine fails you are NOT "unpowered" - you've merely switched from petroleum to gravity as your motive force. As long as the pilot can steer the airplane you can have a safe landing.

Also can you say what would happen in an airline company would intentionally put a plane they knew had a high chance of crashing into the flightroster, I assume between the manslaughter (or what ever was local equilevant) charges and possible being shut down by the law enforcement, trying knownly and intentionally to bypass the international rules and regulations or aviation would carry such massive risk of ruining the company/person that no-one sane would ever try to do that.

Or, if you don't trust in the decency of airline executives: they wouldn't do that because an airliner costs over a hundred million dollars and even a heartless sociopath wouldn't deliberately do that from purely fiscal motives. But, in reality, most of the people in aviation are decent human beings and don't want to see anyone get hurt.

Iroscato wrote: ↑2017-12-30 07:01am You’ll be fine, Archinist. Stop being a pussy.

This isn't even a joke. Did anyone do that isp check?

Getting deja vu here

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2017-12-30 12:01pm

Iroscato wrote: ↑2017-12-30 07:01am You’ll be fine, Archinist. Stop being a pussy.

This isn't even a joke. Did anyone do that isp check?

Getting deja vu here

Hmm, IIRC in that other thread Archinist asked what the odds were of a plane suddenly doing backflips before exploding (hint: not likely). This is still pretty tame in comparison

Tribble wrote: ↑2017-12-30 12:42pmHmm, IIRC in that other thread Archinist asked what the odds were of a plane suddenly doing backflips before exploding (hint: not likely). This is still pretty tame in comparison

Oh, now that we have his flight information, Allah (praise Him) will show us the way. We have been promised 144 virgins in Paradise if we take this twat out in style. He's the only one we really want to ace; the rest are just headline-grabbing collateral damage. You throw in 287 tits (Jamila, I pray for your speedy recovery and recommend marijuana for the chemo symptoms) and you've got yourself one motivated Sharkhadi martyr.

Broomstick wrote: ↑2017-12-30 08:58am Probably late to the party, but you're overreacting.

Yes, an engine problem is serious, but it won't lead to the airplane falling out of the sky. You might wind up landing sooner than expected, but it will be a landing, not a crash.

Even if one engine entirely stopped working, a B-787 can be safely operated with just one. Obviously, you want to land soon rather than continuing on.

Back in the 1980's I was on an airline flight where, due to a bird strike, we had one engine completely stop working on take off. We all landed safe. Yes, it was scary, but no one (other then the bird) was injured, the airplane landed safely. Pilots spend a lot of time training in what to do for emergencies.

A lot of the flight delays have been NOT due to malfunctioning engines but to prevent in-flight malfunctions. That's a good thing. Sure, delays are annoying, but I'd rather be annoyed by a delay than have a problem, even a minor one, in-flight.

I anticipate you will have a routine, uneventful flight.

Yeah, I tend to overreact sometimes, and I'm definitely a bit fearful of flying. Even though most commercial airliners are extremely safe and well-designed machines I'm still pretty nervous around them. Even so, for the most part I was feeling fine after take off and at cruising altitude, and was surprised at how it was sailing through the sky. I was mostly worried about flying over the Tasman Sea, where the nearest airport could be more than an hour and a half away at full speed.

I have to wonder, how well can a commercial twinjet fly after losing one engine? I'm assuming it can be done, of course, but I'd assume the chances of a safe landing would be smaller than a quadjet like the 747 or A380. How would the pilot counter the "roll" from having one of two engines fail?

FancyDarcy wrote: ↑2017-12-30 02:02pm Yeah, I tend to overreact sometimes, and I'm definitely a bit fearful of flying. Even though most commercial airliners are extremely safe and well-designed machines I'm still pretty nervous around them.

It is not entirely irrational to have some concern or even fear in regards to things you don't understand. Most people don't understand how airplanes work or what really holds them up in the air like that. The key thing is not to let the fear run away with you and/or control you.

I was mostly worried about flying over the Tasman Sea, where the nearest airport could be more than an hour and a half away at full speed.

Please scroll up and read about the Air Transat incident I posted earlier. A lot of calculations go into flight planning, including alternate airports (which might not be normally used by passengers but are still able to handle a passenger jets) and calculating how far an airplane with just one engine can safely fly. Everyone involved has a definite interest in making sure the airplane makes a safe landing.

I have to wonder, how well can a commercial twinjet fly after losing one engine? I'm assuming it can be done, of course, but I'd assume the chances of a safe landing would be smaller than a quadjet like the 747 or A380. How would the pilot counter the "roll" from having one of two engines fail?

I could give a long, technical explanation for this, but unless you want want I'll just say that the steering mechanisms on a modern multi-engine passenger jet are sufficient to compensate for any "roll" or other undesirable flight characteristic caused by one engine working and one not.

Although this is NOT true of small, multi-engine general aviation airplanes, at least not in all cases, commercial passenger jets generally can maintain altitude at the very least with one engine down, in some cases even achieve a slow climb (in general, colder air is better for that purpose). It may not be able to maintain maximum cruising altitude but should be able to maintain a safe altitude unless you're crossing over Mount Everest or something similar.

As I said earlier, there have been not one but TWO safe landings in airliners with complete engine failures, including one that occurred mid-way over the Atlantic Ocean. Passenger jets actually make surprisingly good gliders in competent hands. So, in fact, you CAN have a safe landing with a failed engine, this has been done multiple times (I was even on board one of them back in the 1980's), and even if both/all engines fail as long as the pilots have steering control they can control the airplane, which is the most essential thing for landing.

Modern airplanes are actually safer than people think they are.

FancyDarcy wrote: ↑2017-12-30 02:02pm I have to wonder, how well can a commercial twinjet fly after losing one engine? I'm assuming it can be done, of course, but I'd assume the chances of a safe landing would be smaller than a quadjet like the 747 or A380. How would the pilot counter the "roll" from having one of two engines fail?

The FAA certifies that, give proper approval, The 777 and 787 can be 330 minutes at single engine cruise speed from an airport, while the Europeans similarly certify the A330. The A350 has been certified to be 370 minutes from an airport at single engine cruise speed.

Read up on ETOPS* to learn more

*Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim**

**Joke. Actually stands for ExTended OPerationS.

Obligatory:

TimothyC wrote: ↑2017-12-31 01:02am The FAA certifies that, give proper approval, The 777 and 787 can be 330 minutes at single engine cruise speed from an airport, while the Europeans similarly certify the A330. The A350 has been certified to be 370 minutes from an airport at single engine cruise speed.

That is, of course, contingent on sufficient fuel. If the entire flight is only 120 minutes it won't have 330 or 370 minutes of fuel because that's simply not necessary. There will be a margin over the flight time for unexpected circumstances, but airplanes don't fully fuel unless the flight requires it. They also don't fall below a certain minimum, stopping to refuel as necessary to keep a safety margin sufficient to reach alternate airports in the event of problems, whether that's mechanical or a passenger getting sick mid-flight.

Ocean crossings, which give fewer alternatives, will of course have greater reserves than over-land flights under most circumstances.

Of course, not having excessive amounts of fuel on board probably actually helps in case an engine goes out or something, because extra weight is going to make it harder for the aircraft to perform...

Tribble wrote: ↑2017-12-30 12:42pm

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2017-12-30 12:01pm

Iroscato wrote: ↑2017-12-30 07:01am You’ll be fine, Archinist. Stop being a pussy.

This isn't even a joke. Did anyone do that isp check?

Getting deja vu here

Hmm, IIRC in that other thread Archinist asked what the odds were of a plane suddenly doing backflips before exploding (hint: not likely). This is still pretty tame in comparison

FancyDarcy often reminds me of what Archinist would have been like if Archinist gained about twenty IQ points. If he's Archinist, he's a marginally more mature and/or less grimly resolved to be moronic about things Archinist.

Simon_Jester wrote: ↑2017-12-31 05:31pmFancyDarcy often reminds me of what Archinist would have been like if Archinist gained about twenty IQ points. If he's Archinist, he's a marginally more mature and/or less grimly resolved to be moronic about things Archinist.

This thought has entered my mind.

I wonder if he brought 50lb laptop batteries onto the plane.

I thought that was one of the less inane examples, personally. At least the basic question, "How do I keep my GPS, smartphone and Kindle charged while I'm on a week-long camping trip?", isn't a completely stupid one.

There are solar-powered charging panels for that. A lot lighter than a 50lb battery.

I never said that wasn't stupid. Just that the hypothetical scenario it was presented as a solution to wasn't stupid as well, which put it a cut above the average Archnist post.

Zaune wrote: ↑2018-01-01 12:17pm I never said that wasn't stupid. Just that the hypothetical scenario it was presented as a solution to wasn't stupid as well, which put it a cut above the average Archnist post.

Archnist main problem wasn't that he had nothing but bad ideas but rather he clearly had set (often quite silly and absurdly extreme) endpoint in mind and make increasingly silly and absurd excuses to justify that endpoint.