5 ms·

Very interesting. I wonder: what about gunning the engines until they fail? That would leave the plane unable to go far, but still able to make a risky crash la

Very interesting. I wonder: what about gunning the engines until they fail? That would leave the plane unable to go far, but still able to make a risky crash landing using a nearby sea, road or field. Or even an appropriate runway if one timed things right.

chmod775 10y ago
Planes are pretty frail. You'd risk completely destroying the wings. That would leave you with a tube filled with 300 people 10km in the air - but rapidly approaching ground level.
- wongarsu 10y ago
  A plane that's deemed a danger to anything is probably not 10km in the air. At that height it wouldn't even hit Mount Everest, let alone any people. And a plane without wings still has momentum and the lifting body effect going for it to assist an emergency landing. Then again, destroying (part of) the wings probably also causes all the fuel stored in the wings to ignite.
  - Piskvorrr 10y ago
    Ladies and gentlemen, Air Hollywood! A plane without wings flies about as well as any other largish tube, i.e. approximately straight down. As for a plane without engines - the ~5 successful jetliner landings w/o engines in the entire history are called Miracle This and Miracle That for a reason; those things need a lot of power just to keep in the air. Speaking of which: iginted fuel would be the least of your worries - destroyed wing parts means destroyed lift; again, good luck flying a brick.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Sometimes you only need one wing: https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wi...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Piskvorrr 10y ago
        See the part about "miracles": a black swan event doesn't mean that it's repeatable. I'm aware of such incidents - there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider , there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 , there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 - each of which is a case of great skill and great luck combined: nothing that could be adopted as standard operating procedures. Your argument is "look, people have won the lottery before, therefore it's a good idea" - an improbable happyend captures attention far more than the usual outcome of the accident lottery, which is something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  What's that phrase they use, "uncontrolled descent into terrain"?
greedo 10y ago
This is akin to the notion of a police officer being able to shoot the gun out of a criminal's hand. A fighter jet's cannons aren't precision tools, they're designed to hose down a plane, not to make surgical attacks. Also, flying a jet without all engines operational can be difficult, especially if the pilots only have rudimentary training (as was the case with the 9/11 attackers).

chmod775 10y ago

Planes are pretty frail. You'd risk completely destroying the wings. That would leave you with a tube filled with 300 people 10km in the air - but rapidly approaching ground level.

wongarsu 10y ago
A plane that's deemed a danger to anything is probably not 10km in the air. At that height it wouldn't even hit Mount Everest, let alone any people. And a plane without wings still has momentum and the lifting body effect going for it to assist an emergency landing. Then again, destroying (part of) the wings probably also causes all the fuel stored in the wings to ignite.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  Ladies and gentlemen, Air Hollywood! A plane without wings flies about as well as any other largish tube, i.e. approximately straight down. As for a plane without engines - the ~5 successful jetliner landings w/o engines in the entire history are called Miracle This and Miracle That for a reason; those things need a lot of power just to keep in the air. Speaking of which: iginted fuel would be the least of your worries - destroyed wing parts means destroyed lift; again, good luck flying a brick.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Sometimes you only need one wing: https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wing/ https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/15/f-15-lands-with-one-wi...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Piskvorrr 10y ago
      See the part about "miracles": a black swan event doesn't mean that it's repeatable. I'm aware of such incidents - there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider , there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 , there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 - each of which is a case of great skill and great luck combined: nothing that could be adopted as standard operating procedures. Your argument is "look, people have won the lottery before, therefore it's a good idea" - an improbable happyend captures attention far more than the usual outcome of the accident lottery, which is something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
jlgaddis 10y ago
What's that phrase they use, "uncontrolled descent into terrain"?

greedo 10y ago

This is akin to the notion of a police officer being able to shoot the gun out of a criminal's hand. A fighter jet's cannons aren't precision tools, they're designed to hose down a plane, not to make surgical attacks. Also, flying a jet without all engines operational can be difficult, especially if the pilots only have rudimentary training (as was the case with the 9/11 attackers).