3 ms·

That's their point. If the FAA didn't mandate it you can be sure budget airlines would be taking off and doing routes with one engine broken :-)

• WalterBright 6y ago
  That's not a fault of the airliner design. > you can be sure Not likely. Who you gonna get to fly it? Who you gonna get to pay to fly in it?
  • andrekandre 6y ago
    > Who you gonna get to fly it? Who you gonna get to pay to fly in it? a. people in less developed countries b. people in said countries with less money to spend than others this has happened before (south america in the 70s, etc), which is why the aviation industry has the regulatory system it has today
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      Really? You know of examples of passenger planes taking off with only one engine turning? Or of any twin engine airplane doing this deliberately (other than a test flight or desperate emergency, like the volcano is gonna blow any moment).
      • andrekandre 6y ago
        i was lalking about the situation of planes taking off in barely flyable/safe situations that would not be allowed by modern faa regulations, which it think is larger point that was being argued, not debating about the single engine or propeller case sorry if we ended up talking past eachother
• sokoloff 6y ago
  With wing mounted engines on two-engine airliners, there is physically no way to take off on one from other than a dry lake bed. The thrust from the operating engine will introduce more yaw on the airplane than the rudder, nosewheel steering, and wheel brakes can counteract. Even tail mounted engines (with a shorter coupling arm to the centerline) will typically have a Vmcg (roughly, speed at which lateral control on the ground is lost with one engine inoperative) that will preclude takeoff on one (physically, not by regulations) from available runways.