3 ms·

Yes, and that lateral movement is very important since the debris seems to have caused at least one other engine to the right to fail as well.

• jacquesm 11mo ago
  From a failure analysis perspective that is much less relevant though. The first failure was the rear engine mount if it had been a secondary failure it would have been deformed first and then broken, and it clearly is not. It just tore in half on one of the four connections and then the rest deformed slightly due to overstress.
  • rob74 11mo ago
    It was however relevant to the survivability of the accident: if the left engine wouldn't have detached, or would have detached in a more "manageable" way, the other engine (probably the tail engine from how it looks) wouldn't have been affected too, and the pilots would have had a better chance to take off. Plus the whole "when an engine detaches, it shouldn't start a fire in the wing it was attached to" part of course...
    • jacquesm 11mo ago
      Yes, agreed, the secondary safety wasn't there either. There was a Boeing accident near Amsterdam with the plane crashing into an inhabited area, it had dropped two engines but kept flying, at least for a while... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 Pictures of that accident are not for the faint of heart so think twice before clicking.
      • arcfour 11mo ago
        A 747 with 2 engines out that's already got some altitude and speed is much more "survivable" (still extraordinarily difficult) than a trijet trying to take off on 1 engine, which is impossible. Planes can safely land with 0 engines, though this is obviously "not ideal." See: Gimli Glider. (Mostly putting that out there for others.)