7 ms·

Meh, a plane can fly with one engine, and glide with none. I wouldn’t be too worried, unless it blew up and took out a wing. And even if they were flying over t

by xwdv 6y ago

Meh, a plane can fly with one engine, and glide with none. I wouldn’t be too worried, unless it blew up and took out a wing. And even if they were flying over the pacific, planes are required to be within a certain distance of land at all times. Probably enough to get to an airport. Edit: I don’t get the downvotes. It’s true.

blunte 6y ago
The downvotes begin from “meh”. Many of these people reasonably thought they would die. What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred.
- xwdv 6y ago
  Not reasonably, no. And many passengers on the flight casually dismissed it as well from what the article says. Also, sometimes engines fail silently and passengers don’t even realize it since air keeps blowing through it to keep it spinning. You likely have been on a plane with a downed engine and didn’t even realize it if you fly regularly. You were fine.
  - KMag 6y ago
    The passengers would be unaware only if the engine failure occurred near the destination. Pilots don't just keep flying for hours with an engine failure if they have any alternative places to land.
    - adamjb 6y ago
      Funnily enough I was searching about for info on B772 single engine range and found this anecdote that contradicts you. >Just as a practical example of reduced range with an engine out, We departed Santiago, Chile in a 747 freighter with enough fuel to reach Miami. During the climb out we lost an engine. We elected to continue rather than dump fuel and return. However, because we could not reach our intended cruising altitude, the increased fuel burn meant we only had enough fuel to reach Panama City, Panama https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/how-far-can-a-777-fly-with-just-one-engine-at-altitude https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/how-far-ca...
      - tomjakubowski 6y ago
        That's freight. Would they really do that with passengers on board?
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        It's also a 747, which means 3 engines left instead of just 1.
        adamjb 6y ago
        Almost definitely not, but it still shows that pilots aren't too concerned about engine outs to the point where it's an automatic mayday, especially on a four engined planes. I wouldn't have shared the anecdote if it hadn't violated my preconceptions.
    - roelschroeven 6y ago
      As with anything, there always are exceptions. In this case Smartwings flight QS-1125: the pilot in command ignored an engine failure and went on to land on the original destination instead of landing at the closest suitable airport. See e.g. https://www.aerotime.aero/25513-reckless-pilot-flies-with-one-engine-ignores-regulations https://www.aerotime.aero/25513-reckless-pilot-flies-with-on... and https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83...
  - gspr 6y ago
    > Also, sometimes engines fail silently and passengers don’t even realize it since air keeps blowing through it to keep it spinning. You likely have been on a plane with a downed engine and didn’t even realize it if you fly regularly. You were fine. The FAA estimates that jet engines fail once per 375,000 flight hours. So no, you're not "likely" to have been on a plane with a downed engine. If you wanna act so damn tough criticizing what may well be partially an emotional reaction of the part of these passengers, you should at least get your facts right.
- unanswered 6y ago
  > Many of these people reasonably thought they would die. Believing that the loss of single engine in this kind of plane will lead to a crash is not reasonable. It's a failure which happens all the time. If this sort of failure usually led to a crash then planes would be falling out of the sky all the time, which even someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself) should very well know doesn't happen. Saying otherwise is literal FUD. Our society seems to run on FUD now though so par for the course I guess.
  - adaml_623 6y ago
    I was not on the plane so I don't know but if I was sitting on a plane and there was odd turbulence and then people at the window in front started exclaiming that the plane was on fire then I would be worried. In addition disintegrating jet engines sometimes cause problems by shooting fragments of turbine into the body of the plane. There are very valid reasons to be worried even if you know you have one working engine. You have contradicted yourself by saying, "someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself)" and also saying, "It's a failure that happens all the time." Knowing that the engine failures happen all the time is not something that someone with very little knowledge would know. In short your comment was not well thought out.
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      Most engine failures are not this spectacular. If an engine is quietly shut down due to some fault, low oil pressure or high temperature or something, you'd likely never notice until the captain announced that you'd be landing at an alternate airport due to a techincal problem. I'm not sure I'd say they happen "all the time" but engine shutdowns are not uncommon. Read avherald.com for a few weeks to see just how many technical problems come up routinely in commercial aviation.
      - blunte 6y ago
        If you are on the plane, you don’t care a bit about statistics. “Most” is not your concern. You want no further risk. And by definition, losing half of your engines presents a lot of risk. There is an unfortunate famous incident in Amsterdam decades ago where a 747 cargo plane lost an engine, and the ejected material caused additional damage. Then the engine sheared off, striking another engine. Then it became a disaster scenario. Myself an no other passengers on any plane are comfortable with losing an engine. Only people sitting at home, crunching numbers, are unconcerned.
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  > What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred. Some types of engine failures I imagine would correlate with failure of the other engine, other types not so much. Is there data on this?
- nooyurrsdey 6y ago
  Seriously, the nonchalance in that phrasing is really off putting. It may be technically true, but words matter and "meh" is just an ignorant thing to type out in this situation. All these emotionless HN comments - most of us would be terrified in that position.
titzer 6y ago
This requirement that planes be within a certain distance of land at all times is a myth. While some flight plans are adjusted slightly for safety, there are absolutely long haul routes that just blaze right across a wide-open ocean.
- achandlerwhite 6y ago
  Those planes probably have 3 or 4 engines. For 2 engine cross ocean flights there are definitely rules about distance from a landing option.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    The distance must be fairly generous. I flew directly over the top of the north pole in a 777, and I have to imagine that at that point the nearest 777-capable landing strip is quite a ways off.
    - Pasorrijer 6y ago
      You'd be incorrect. The capital of Nunavut in Canada is cleared to land up to an A380, and that's fairly close to the North Pole. Often that's how OEM's will get their cold weather testing done, by just flying up in the winter.
      - andrewem 6y ago
        I found the Wikipedia article for that airport, which says it has one runway of 2,623 meters and serves as a diversion airport on polar routes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport And here’s a list of diversion airports: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversion_airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversion_airport
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
rzzzt 6y ago
ETOPS ("Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim") flight plans are routed so that an airport can be reached with a single operational engine in so-and-so many minutes. If both engines are out, it's going to be a water landing: https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/etops-plane-abbreviation https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/etops-pla...
- mulmen 6y ago
  It's not going to be a water landing in Colorado. ETOPS is "Extended Twin OPerationS". It doesn't have anything to do with water. It has to do with range from an alternate airport when flying twin engine aircraft. The terminology has been updated to EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations) to apply the guidance to four engine planes like the 747-8.
- jhayward 6y ago
  And the most recent ETOPS rating I've seen for a 777-300ER was 330 minutes. Almost 6 hours.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    If an aircraft can fly for 6 hours on one engine, why can’t it fly indefinitely on one engine?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Well, it'll run out of fuel at some point. The longest route in the world is Singapore to Newark, 18.5 hours, so six isn't gonna get you there, but it'll get you to a safe landing. Finally, we have two engines (in part) so you can safely lose one. Losing one engine when you've only got one is a substantially more significant emergency.
    - newsclues 6y ago
      Speed, fuel economy and redundancy
    - jandrese 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mark-r 6y ago
An old coworker was a private pilot. He told me that the purpose of the second engine in a twin-engine private plane was to get you to the scene of the crash.
soheil 6y ago
I didn't downvote. How would you land safely if the engine blew up and took out a wing?
- Pasorrijer 6y ago
  Good question... You wouldn't land safely. That's part of the reason the design of the engine is such that if there's a failure, the engine cowling is supposed contain all the debris so that there is no damage to the wing, airframe or associated systems.
- xwdv 6y ago
  Only way to do it somewhat safely is with a whole aircraft parachute.
gspr 6y ago
> Meh, a plane can fly with one engine Yes. But then it's used up its safety margin. So your logic works for why you shouldn't worry when the plane is in perfectly good working order and has two working engines. Your logic is completely idiotic for when one engine has failed. > , and glide with none Not very far, it can't! About 150 km from cruising altitude. This plane was still climbing out of its departure airport. Do you remember just how far US Airways 1549 got to comfortably glide after losing power during its ascent? Give me a break. > unless it blew up and took out a wing How's debris in the wing (possibly in the fuel tank) for ya? https://theairlinewebsite.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/152844002_10224369972578942_3558511734802398052_n.jpg.408c76b8aacee918be91e74583773472.jpg https://theairlinewebsite.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/152844... > And even if they were flying over the pacific, planes are required to be within a certain distance of land at all times. Probably enough to get to an airport. The Boeing 777 can be ETOPS-330! 330 minutes at one-engine speed from a diversion airport. That's pretty far! Sure, on one engine they'd be fine, but you're a moron for ridiculing them for having shaved away their safety margin. > Edit: I don’t get the downvotes. It’s true. "It's true"? "It" is a bunch of lazy opinionated crap that's meant to ridicule someone for being worried when a very safe mode of transportation just shaved away a gigantic part of its safety margin.

by xwdv 6y ago

blunte 6y ago

The downvotes begin from “meh”. Many of these people reasonably thought they would die. What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred.

xwdv 6y ago
Not reasonably, no. And many passengers on the flight casually dismissed it as well from what the article says. Also, sometimes engines fail silently and passengers don’t even realize it since air keeps blowing through it to keep it spinning. You likely have been on a plane with a downed engine and didn’t even realize it if you fly regularly. You were fine.
- KMag 6y ago
  The passengers would be unaware only if the engine failure occurred near the destination. Pilots don't just keep flying for hours with an engine failure if they have any alternative places to land.
  - adamjb 6y ago
    Funnily enough I was searching about for info on B772 single engine range and found this anecdote that contradicts you. >Just as a practical example of reduced range with an engine out, We departed Santiago, Chile in a 747 freighter with enough fuel to reach Miami. During the climb out we lost an engine. We elected to continue rather than dump fuel and return. However, because we could not reach our intended cruising altitude, the increased fuel burn meant we only had enough fuel to reach Panama City, Panama https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/how-far-can-a-777-fly-with-just-one-engine-at-altitude https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7437/how-far-ca...
    - tomjakubowski 6y ago
      That's freight. Would they really do that with passengers on board?
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        It's also a 747, which means 3 engines left instead of just 1.
      - adamjb 6y ago
        Almost definitely not, but it still shows that pilots aren't too concerned about engine outs to the point where it's an automatic mayday, especially on a four engined planes. I wouldn't have shared the anecdote if it hadn't violated my preconceptions.
  - roelschroeven 6y ago
    As with anything, there always are exceptions. In this case Smartwings flight QS-1125: the pilot in command ignored an engine failure and went on to land on the original destination instead of landing at the closest suitable airport. See e.g. https://www.aerotime.aero/25513-reckless-pilot-flies-with-one-engine-ignores-regulations https://www.aerotime.aero/25513-reckless-pilot-flies-with-on... and https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83jsR0A9-W https://youtu.be/0ga8UFy1M04?list=PLiNyr6QSO28P2bKMcv2O_lK83...
- gspr 6y ago
  > Also, sometimes engines fail silently and passengers don’t even realize it since air keeps blowing through it to keep it spinning. You likely have been on a plane with a downed engine and didn’t even realize it if you fly regularly. You were fine. The FAA estimates that jet engines fail once per 375,000 flight hours. So no, you're not "likely" to have been on a plane with a downed engine. If you wanna act so damn tough criticizing what may well be partially an emotional reaction of the part of these passengers, you should at least get your facts right.
unanswered 6y ago
> Many of these people reasonably thought they would die. Believing that the loss of single engine in this kind of plane will lead to a crash is not reasonable. It's a failure which happens all the time. If this sort of failure usually led to a crash then planes would be falling out of the sky all the time, which even someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself) should very well know doesn't happen. Saying otherwise is literal FUD. Our society seems to run on FUD now though so par for the course I guess.
- adaml_623 6y ago
  I was not on the plane so I don't know but if I was sitting on a plane and there was odd turbulence and then people at the window in front started exclaiming that the plane was on fire then I would be worried. In addition disintegrating jet engines sometimes cause problems by shooting fragments of turbine into the body of the plane. There are very valid reasons to be worried even if you know you have one working engine. You have contradicted yourself by saying, "someone with very little knowledge about planes (such as myself)" and also saying, "It's a failure that happens all the time." Knowing that the engine failures happen all the time is not something that someone with very little knowledge would know. In short your comment was not well thought out.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Most engine failures are not this spectacular. If an engine is quietly shut down due to some fault, low oil pressure or high temperature or something, you'd likely never notice until the captain announced that you'd be landing at an alternate airport due to a techincal problem. I'm not sure I'd say they happen "all the time" but engine shutdowns are not uncommon. Read avherald.com for a few weeks to see just how many technical problems come up routinely in commercial aviation.
    - blunte 6y ago
      If you are on the plane, you don’t care a bit about statistics. “Most” is not your concern. You want no further risk. And by definition, losing half of your engines presents a lot of risk. There is an unfortunate famous incident in Amsterdam decades ago where a 747 cargo plane lost an engine, and the ejected material caused additional damage. Then the engine sheared off, striking another engine. Then it became a disaster scenario. Myself an no other passengers on any plane are comfortable with losing an engine. Only people sitting at home, crunching numbers, are unconcerned.
tomjakubowski 6y ago
> What you so casually dismiss could have been a tragic story if only one more failure had occurred. Some types of engine failures I imagine would correlate with failure of the other engine, other types not so much. Is there data on this?
nooyurrsdey 6y ago
Seriously, the nonchalance in that phrasing is really off putting. It may be technically true, but words matter and "meh" is just an ignorant thing to type out in this situation. All these emotionless HN comments - most of us would be terrified in that position.

titzer 6y ago

This requirement that planes be within a certain distance of land at all times is a myth. While some flight plans are adjusted slightly for safety, there are absolutely long haul routes that just blaze right across a wide-open ocean.

achandlerwhite 6y ago
Those planes probably have 3 or 4 engines. For 2 engine cross ocean flights there are definitely rules about distance from a landing option.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  The distance must be fairly generous. I flew directly over the top of the north pole in a 777, and I have to imagine that at that point the nearest 777-capable landing strip is quite a ways off.
  - Pasorrijer 6y ago
    You'd be incorrect. The capital of Nunavut in Canada is cleared to land up to an A380, and that's fairly close to the North Pole. Often that's how OEM's will get their cold weather testing done, by just flying up in the winter.
    - andrewem 6y ago
      I found the Wikipedia article for that airport, which says it has one runway of 2,623 meters and serves as a diversion airport on polar routes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport And here’s a list of diversion airports: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversion_airport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversion_airport
    - rootusrootus 6y ago

rzzzt 6y ago

ETOPS ("Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim") flight plans are routed so that an airport can be reached with a single operational engine in so-and-so many minutes. If both engines are out, it's going to be a water landing: https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/etops-plane-abbreviation https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/etops-pla...

mulmen 6y ago
It's not going to be a water landing in Colorado. ETOPS is "Extended Twin OPerationS". It doesn't have anything to do with water. It has to do with range from an alternate airport when flying twin engine aircraft. The terminology has been updated to EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations) to apply the guidance to four engine planes like the 747-8.
jhayward 6y ago
And the most recent ETOPS rating I've seen for a 777-300ER was 330 minutes. Almost 6 hours.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  If an aircraft can fly for 6 hours on one engine, why can’t it fly indefinitely on one engine?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Well, it'll run out of fuel at some point. The longest route in the world is Singapore to Newark, 18.5 hours, so six isn't gonna get you there, but it'll get you to a safe landing. Finally, we have two engines (in part) so you can safely lose one. Losing one engine when you've only got one is a substantially more significant emergency.
  - newsclues 6y ago
    Speed, fuel economy and redundancy
  - jandrese 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mark-r 6y ago

An old coworker was a private pilot. He told me that the purpose of the second engine in a twin-engine private plane was to get you to the scene of the crash.

soheil 6y ago

I didn't downvote. How would you land safely if the engine blew up and took out a wing?

Pasorrijer 6y ago
Good question... You wouldn't land safely. That's part of the reason the design of the engine is such that if there's a failure, the engine cowling is supposed contain all the debris so that there is no damage to the wing, airframe or associated systems.
xwdv 6y ago
Only way to do it somewhat safely is with a whole aircraft parachute.

gspr 6y ago

> Meh, a plane can fly with one engine Yes. But then it's used up its safety margin. So your logic works for why you shouldn't worry when the plane is in perfectly good working order and has two working engines. Your logic is completely idiotic for when one engine has failed. > , and glide with none Not very far, it can't! About 150 km from cruising altitude. This plane was still climbing out of its departure airport. Do you remember just how far US Airways 1549 got to comfortably glide after losing power during its ascent? Give me a break. > unless it blew up and took out a wing How's debris in the wing (possibly in the fuel tank) for ya? https://theairlinewebsite.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/152844002_10224369972578942_3558511734802398052_n.jpg.408c76b8aacee918be91e74583773472.jpg https://theairlinewebsite.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/152844... > And even if they were flying over the pacific, planes are required to be within a certain distance of land at all times. Probably enough to get to an airport. The Boeing 777 can be ETOPS-330! 330 minutes at one-engine speed from a diversion airport. That's pretty far! Sure, on one engine they'd be fine, but you're a moron for ridiculing them for having shaved away their safety margin. > Edit: I don’t get the downvotes. It’s true. "It's true"? "It" is a bunch of lazy opinionated crap that's meant to ridicule someone for being worried when a very safe mode of transportation just shaved away a gigantic part of its safety margin.