5 ms·

I'm glad to have experienced flying in the retro futuristic 747 but the Lufthansa A340-600 felt like a proper top of the line spaceship. I still can't fathom th

I'm glad to have experienced flying in the retro futuristic 747 but the Lufthansa A340-600 felt like a proper top of the line spaceship. I still can't fathom that twin engine is now deemed safe for long haul flights. I always feel uneasy when crossing the Atlantic with one.

pc86 2y ago
Why? Any modern twin-engine plane can operate just fine on a single engine. Dual engine failure is extremely rare, especially at altitude - most of the time it's birds like the USA1549 at much lower altitudes.
- musha68k 2y ago
  Yeah, I know all of that plus the ecological / economic side.. it still irks me. Maybe I've seen just too many failing redundant disk arrays in my career.
  - potatolicious 2y ago
    Fortunately aircraft are evaluated on a much stricter standard than hard disks...
    - musha68k 2y ago
      You don't say! ;P
  - carabiner 2y ago
    You should work on that. Generalizing tech/CS concepts to the physical world is a common shortcoming I see among SWE's. They just don't understand concepts of variability in the real world or experimental physical science.
- xattt 2y ago
  > Any modern twin-engine plane can operate just fine on a single engine Introducing Boeing’s latest innovation… ESOPS!
  - pinewurst 2y ago
    I thought their latest innovation was the sunroof…
    - greengreengrass 2y ago
      They invented that back in '88 when the roof came off Aloha Flight 243! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243)
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> feel uneasy when crossing the Atlantic with one Modern engines are ridiculously reliable and ridiculously powerful. That means they don’t fail frequently. And when they do, one is enough to limp to safety [1]. [1] https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-757-engine-loss-pacific-ocean/ https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-757-engine-l...
- musha68k 2y ago
  Yes, I know all of that and we do have the empirical data to support the safety argument. Still there's just too much efficiency mindset at play for my taste. I prefer big buffers, especially in mission critical scenarios.
  - mikepurvis 2y ago
    But then you still probably choose to drive your car every day, despite that doing so is many, many times more risky than flying over the ocean in a twinjet. Human preferences ultimately shape these marketplaces, but humans are fundamentally terrible at evaluating risk, especially for extremely negative but highly unlikely outcomes (see also: terrorist attacks, home invasions, etc).
    - musha68k 2y ago
      Yeah no question, I definitely also feel uneasy on the road. Contexts differ greatly by the way.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - chatmasta 2y ago
      Personally I minimize time spent in automobiles, whether driving or as a passenger, precisely because it’s so dangerous. My risk of sudden death is drastically lower on days that I don’t spend any time inside a vehicle moving at high speeds on the highway.
  - 2y ago
foldr 2y ago
The safety calculus isn't quite as simple as "more engines = safer". Having more engines also increases the chances of one of the engines failing, and engine failure can be quite immediately dangerous to the aircraft if it's uncontained. (You don't want to get hit by a detached fan blade.)
- musha68k 2y ago
  Good point.
- cmurf 2y ago
  Even if contained it can be dangerous. Light twin piston airplanes, likwise double the odds of engine failure, but due to the dramatic loss of excess thrust, the good engine actually becomes the problem, e.g. Vmc limitation. The assymetric thrust force can exceed control surface force needed for controlled flight. The solution is never go below Vmc airspeed, but if you do it requires immediate power reduction. And that has consequences that often inhibits committing to the proper action prior to loss of control. In most cases power reduction commits the pilot to landing sooner than preferred, and in a likely suboptimal location.
- accrual 2y ago
  > You don't want to get hit by a detached fan blade. For the morbidly curious, this occurred on Delta Flight 1288: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/written-in-metal-the-story-of-delta-air-lines-flight-1288-1205599c1b55 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/written-in-metal-the-sto...
throw0101b 2y ago
> I still can't fathom that twin engine is now deemed safe for long haul flights. I always feel uneasy when crossing the Atlantic with one. If one engine fails, you have another. If the second fails, you glide. Since 1953, there have been less than 50 airline flights that have required gliding: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_r... Per the usual trope-y statistic: if you want a safe trip for your vacation, don't drive to the airport (which would be the riskiest leg of the journey).
SkyMarshal 2y ago
Crossing the Atlantic generally isn't a problem, most routes take you close to land. It's crossing the Pacific, like from US to Hawaii, that is a bit cagey.

pc86 2y ago

Why? Any modern twin-engine plane can operate just fine on a single engine. Dual engine failure is extremely rare, especially at altitude - most of the time it's birds like the USA1549 at much lower altitudes.

musha68k 2y ago
Yeah, I know all of that plus the ecological / economic side.. it still irks me. Maybe I've seen just too many failing redundant disk arrays in my career.
- potatolicious 2y ago
  Fortunately aircraft are evaluated on a much stricter standard than hard disks...
  - musha68k 2y ago
    You don't say! ;P
- carabiner 2y ago
  You should work on that. Generalizing tech/CS concepts to the physical world is a common shortcoming I see among SWE's. They just don't understand concepts of variability in the real world or experimental physical science.
xattt 2y ago
> Any modern twin-engine plane can operate just fine on a single engine Introducing Boeing’s latest innovation… ESOPS!
- pinewurst 2y ago
  I thought their latest innovation was the sunroof…
  - greengreengrass 2y ago
    They invented that back in '88 when the roof came off Aloha Flight 243! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> feel uneasy when crossing the Atlantic with one Modern engines are ridiculously reliable and ridiculously powerful. That means they don’t fail frequently. And when they do, one is enough to limp to safety [1]. [1] https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-757-engine-loss-pacific-ocean/ https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-757-engine-l...

musha68k 2y ago
Yes, I know all of that and we do have the empirical data to support the safety argument. Still there's just too much efficiency mindset at play for my taste. I prefer big buffers, especially in mission critical scenarios.
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  But then you still probably choose to drive your car every day, despite that doing so is many, many times more risky than flying over the ocean in a twinjet. Human preferences ultimately shape these marketplaces, but humans are fundamentally terrible at evaluating risk, especially for extremely negative but highly unlikely outcomes (see also: terrorist attacks, home invasions, etc).
  - musha68k 2y ago
    Yeah no question, I definitely also feel uneasy on the road. Contexts differ greatly by the way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - chatmasta 2y ago
    Personally I minimize time spent in automobiles, whether driving or as a passenger, precisely because it’s so dangerous. My risk of sudden death is drastically lower on days that I don’t spend any time inside a vehicle moving at high speeds on the highway.
- 2y ago

foldr 2y ago

The safety calculus isn't quite as simple as "more engines = safer". Having more engines also increases the chances of one of the engines failing, and engine failure can be quite immediately dangerous to the aircraft if it's uncontained. (You don't want to get hit by a detached fan blade.)

musha68k 2y ago
Good point.
cmurf 2y ago
Even if contained it can be dangerous. Light twin piston airplanes, likwise double the odds of engine failure, but due to the dramatic loss of excess thrust, the good engine actually becomes the problem, e.g. Vmc limitation. The assymetric thrust force can exceed control surface force needed for controlled flight. The solution is never go below Vmc airspeed, but if you do it requires immediate power reduction. And that has consequences that often inhibits committing to the proper action prior to loss of control. In most cases power reduction commits the pilot to landing sooner than preferred, and in a likely suboptimal location.
accrual 2y ago
> You don't want to get hit by a detached fan blade. For the morbidly curious, this occurred on Delta Flight 1288: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/written-in-metal-the-story-of-delta-air-lines-flight-1288-1205599c1b55 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/written-in-metal-the-sto...

throw0101b 2y ago

> I still can't fathom that twin engine is now deemed safe for long haul flights. I always feel uneasy when crossing the Atlantic with one. If one engine fails, you have another. If the second fails, you glide. Since 1953, there have been less than 50 airline flights that have required gliding: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_r... Per the usual trope-y statistic: if you want a safe trip for your vacation, don't drive to the airport (which would be the riskiest leg of the journey).

SkyMarshal 2y ago

Crossing the Atlantic generally isn't a problem, most routes take you close to land. It's crossing the Pacific, like from US to Hawaii, that is a bit cagey.