5 ms·

I would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong.

by juanse 3y ago

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
I imagine if the engine bursts into flames they are probably going to want to land the plane anyways.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Assuming you're over land, which definitely isn't always the case. You better hope the integral fire suppression system works. If it doesn't you're about to have your day - and possibly much more - ruined solidly.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    the A350 can fly with one engine, not sure about the 321neo.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Anything over water can fly with one engine out. https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operations/navigation-approvals/etops/ https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operation... A321 Neo LR is approved for that. https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/ https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/
      - HPsquared 3y ago
        Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. That generalizes to 'any plane with more than one engine can fly with one engine out'. > The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. That's where certification comes in: not all twin engine planes are ETOPS certified. > Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out. Yes, and that translates into much more work than just 'a bit more margin' under the hood, to get that margin you also will need to take this into account during the design phase of the aircraft, crew training, maintenance schedule etc. Incidents under ETOPS conditions are rated more severely than those in other situations.
      - leoedin 3y ago
        While I appreciate that modern aircraft are incredibly safe, I don't think many people really appreciate what it means for a flight and aircraft to be ETOPS 240 or ETOPS 330 certified. That means if something happens in the air, you have 4 - 5.5 hours of flying before you reach an acceptable runway. You really are on your own. Something to think about next time you're over the pacific.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong For the engine to melt a window, something has gone wrong enough that this tolerance isn't material. (You'd need a lot of heat. Plus enough turbulence to blow it laterally inward, but not so much that it's allowed to cool. That combination suggests a loss of power and a low-speed, i.e. low-altitude, stall.)
- trelane 3y ago
  Even more than that. From the article: "They located the source of the noise as a dislodged window pane aft of the over wing exit." The engines are under the wing; the affected seals were over it. If you're melting the window panes in this scenario from the engines, you're having a really, really bad day. Plus, the noise increase from a missing window pant would likely be the smallest of the warning signs.
MadnessASAP 3y ago
Failures, particularly fires, around the engines and wings are either dealt with in minutes[1] or the state of the window becomes no longer relevant. [1] The complete list of options are typically starvation, suppression, evacuation. Apply in that order and do so quickly.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Shouldn't there be an emergency landing somewhere in the middle there?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Landing is just a necessary part of the evacuation step.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      It’s definitely not necessary. Parachutes exist.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        I think it's pretty clear the context is commercial air travel here. "Starvation, suppression, and evacuation" needs neither "emergency landing" nor "don a parachute" to be added to it to be understandable. Both are just prerequisite steps to the "evacuation" mitigation.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Well, in a military context 'evacuation' might be 'pull the eject lever', but in a commercial aircraft the landing bit isn't optional because there are no ejection seats and there isn't a way to exit the plane other than after getting it on the ground (or the water) in one way or another. That prerequisite step may never be completed, due to the aircraft being destroyed before it can be evacuated.
  - 3y ago
whalesalad 3y ago
the engines don't put out a lot of radiant heat, especially at altitude where it is -50 outside. the lights on the other hand are putting out a metric fuck ton of heat directly at the illuminated area. heat from an engine is directed straight out the back by nature of the turbines. modern engines are also what are called "high bypass ratio" engines, where the outer ring of the engine (closest to the cladding) is really just air flowing by. the combustion area is smaller, in the center.
strangattractor 3y ago
I as thinking how hot it gets sitting on a tarmac in Saudi Arabia or Tucson in the summer. A nice BLACK painted fuselage seems like a really bad idea. Just a thought.
kayfox 3y ago
> considering the distance they have from the engines The engines are under the wing, the windows are above the wing, they are not very close to the windows at all.
chankstein38 3y ago
I was thinking this too... What if something caught fire in the aircraft during flight? I assume they land regardless but it goes from "Get the fire extinguisher and put it out" to "DO IT BEFORE THE WINDOWS MELT OFF!"
ssnistfajen 3y ago
The primary objective would be to prevent engines from creating those unexpected excessive heat events in the first place.
nomel 3y ago
With an engine fire, at speed, the vast majority of the heat will be from the flame, in the air, traveling backwards at hundreds of miles per hour. This leaves the radiant heat. At speed, the radiant heat, from a fuel fire, has no hope of overcoming the many hundred mph wind that is scrubbing along the window, cooling it off.

I would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong.

by juanse 3y ago

I would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

I imagine if the engine bursts into flames they are probably going to want to land the plane anyways.

jacquesm 3y ago
Assuming you're over land, which definitely isn't always the case. You better hope the integral fire suppression system works. If it doesn't you're about to have your day - and possibly much more - ruined solidly.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  the A350 can fly with one engine, not sure about the 321neo.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Anything over water can fly with one engine out. https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operations/navigation-approvals/etops/ https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operation... A321 Neo LR is approved for that. https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/ https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. That generalizes to 'any plane with more than one engine can fly with one engine out'. > The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. That's where certification comes in: not all twin engine planes are ETOPS certified. > Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out. Yes, and that translates into much more work than just 'a bit more margin' under the hood, to get that margin you also will need to take this into account during the design phase of the aircraft, crew training, maintenance schedule etc. Incidents under ETOPS conditions are rated more severely than those in other situations.
    - leoedin 3y ago
      While I appreciate that modern aircraft are incredibly safe, I don't think many people really appreciate what it means for a flight and aircraft to be ETOPS 240 or ETOPS 330 certified. That means if something happens in the air, you have 4 - 5.5 hours of flying before you reach an acceptable runway. You really are on your own. Something to think about next time you're over the pacific.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong For the engine to melt a window, something has gone wrong enough that this tolerance isn't material. (You'd need a lot of heat. Plus enough turbulence to blow it laterally inward, but not so much that it's allowed to cool. That combination suggests a loss of power and a low-speed, i.e. low-altitude, stall.)

trelane 3y ago
Even more than that. From the article: "They located the source of the noise as a dislodged window pane aft of the over wing exit." The engines are under the wing; the affected seals were over it. If you're melting the window panes in this scenario from the engines, you're having a really, really bad day. Plus, the noise increase from a missing window pant would likely be the smallest of the warning signs.

MadnessASAP 3y ago

Failures, particularly fires, around the engines and wings are either dealt with in minutes[1] or the state of the window becomes no longer relevant. [1] The complete list of options are typically starvation, suppression, evacuation. Apply in that order and do so quickly.

jacquesm 3y ago
Shouldn't there be an emergency landing somewhere in the middle there?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Landing is just a necessary part of the evacuation step.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    It’s definitely not necessary. Parachutes exist.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      I think it's pretty clear the context is commercial air travel here. "Starvation, suppression, and evacuation" needs neither "emergency landing" nor "don a parachute" to be added to it to be understandable. Both are just prerequisite steps to the "evacuation" mitigation.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Well, in a military context 'evacuation' might be 'pull the eject lever', but in a commercial aircraft the landing bit isn't optional because there are no ejection seats and there isn't a way to exit the plane other than after getting it on the ground (or the water) in one way or another. That prerequisite step may never be completed, due to the aircraft being destroyed before it can be evacuated.
- 3y ago

whalesalad 3y ago

the engines don't put out a lot of radiant heat, especially at altitude where it is -50 outside. the lights on the other hand are putting out a metric fuck ton of heat directly at the illuminated area. heat from an engine is directed straight out the back by nature of the turbines. modern engines are also what are called "high bypass ratio" engines, where the outer ring of the engine (closest to the cladding) is really just air flowing by. the combustion area is smaller, in the center.

strangattractor 3y ago

I as thinking how hot it gets sitting on a tarmac in Saudi Arabia or Tucson in the summer. A nice BLACK painted fuselage seems like a really bad idea. Just a thought.

kayfox 3y ago

> considering the distance they have from the engines The engines are under the wing, the windows are above the wing, they are not very close to the windows at all.

chankstein38 3y ago

I was thinking this too... What if something caught fire in the aircraft during flight? I assume they land regardless but it goes from "Get the fire extinguisher and put it out" to "DO IT BEFORE THE WINDOWS MELT OFF!"

ssnistfajen 3y ago

The primary objective would be to prevent engines from creating those unexpected excessive heat events in the first place.

nomel 3y ago

With an engine fire, at speed, the vast majority of the heat will be from the flame, in the air, traveling backwards at hundreds of miles per hour. This leaves the radiant heat. At speed, the radiant heat, from a fuel fire, has no hope of overcoming the many hundred mph wind that is scrubbing along the window, cooling it off.