6 ms·

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 on

by 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.

by 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.