3 ms·

Yeah, there's a pilot proverb about how having a second engine "helps you get to the crash site faster".

• FabHK 8y ago
  Or "the plane is certified such that the remaining engine has enough power to take you to the crash site". Indeed. As outlined above, you double the probability that a mechanical problem occurs. (For p small, 1-(1-p)^2 is around 2p). Now, if the pilots are very much on top of things (well trained and current), then they can control things and safely land at the nearest suitable airport. However, if they make a mistake (and that's surprisingly easy [1]), it could easily be fatal. A single-engine plane with an engine failure, in contrast, becomes a bad glider, with a decent chance of surviving the ensuing forced landing. [1] For example, the TransAsia ATR 72 twin turbo prop clipping a bridge in Taiwan after the crew erroneously shut down the "good" engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSoZOsIC25M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSoZOsIC25M
  • pas 8y ago
    Would it be possible to make single-engine planes usable for commercial passenger flights with similar economics?
  • DuskStar 8y ago
    Just want to point out that "shutting down the 'good' engine" isn't some isolated incident - that was a contributing factor to the British Midland Flight 92 crash [0] as well. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster