5 ms·
A multiple engine aircraft maintaining flight on a single engine is vastly different to the same craft being able to complete a take off when an engine fails mi
by defrost 1y ago
A multiple engine aircraft maintaining flight on a single engine is vastly different to the same craft being able to complete a take off when an engine fails mid process.
Aircraft can land (in right circumstances) by gliding in sans power .. the same cannot be said for take offs.
- bartread 1y agoIf during your takeoff roll you lose one engine on a twin engine jet below speed V1[0], you reject the take-off. V1 is calculated for the aircraft such that above that speed you are able to safely take off and execute a go-around in order to land again on just that single engine. Aborting above V1 is heavily discouraged because usually there's a strong risk of running off the end of the runway. Of course, if you lose both engines above V1, you're really in trouble and left without much choice. But we don't know what happened with this flight so nothing I've said here should be taken as indicative of whatever went wrong in this case. It's purely information. [0] Which depends on many factors including the type of aircraft, loading, weather conditions, state of the runway surface - for example, wet, or iced - etc., and needs to be calculated afresh for every take off.
- wkat4242 1y agoYeah in some cases rejecting after V1 is a better choice. If you're going to impact something anyway you'll be doing it with a slower speed and no vertical component in that case. An airliner in the US did it and the pilot was praised for making that hard decision. Everyone walked I think. I forget which flight.
- AaronM 1y agoModern commercial aircraft is designed to operate on a single engine through all modes of flight. One a plane reaches v1 during takeoff, it can lose an engine and still takeoff. It an engine was lost before v1, the takeoff would be aborted. Here is an Airbus doing just that. https://youtu.be/5QMJ3_NiWbs?si=5nZ4yU7T7hsGSUu2 https://youtu.be/5QMJ3_NiWbs?si=5nZ4yU7T7hsGSUu2
- defrost 1y agoI've spent a few million line kilometres in a variety of airframes and understand that "designed to operate" through an event is not the same as "actually survives" that event. There are many factors at play and things are complicated by unexpected failures. Thank you for the video that demonstrates a pilot aware in advance of planned "engine failure" can cope with such an event in scheduled test conditions.
- Symbiote 1y agoHow does sitting in a plane more than average give you more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators?
- defrost 1y agoPilots, aircraft engineers, and safety regulators also sit in aircraft. The phrase "line kilometres" might indicate a smidgeon of aviation industry adjacency to some. EDIT: Above and below comments appear to be low grade random sniping in bad faith. There's a failure to address content and specifics and a straw assertion about "more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators", a claim that was never made. At best I have the same insights as anyone that worked with 20 airframes for a few decades and staged them about the globe in that time. EDIT2: Symbiote has deleted their problematic reply below that the first edit was made in response to. The michaelt reply came after the reply by Symbiote and is moot, all my statements are here, undeleted and unredacted.