Why Losing an Engine on Your Airline Flight Is No Big Deal
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- For some, flying can be terrifying. Not for me; that would make my day job slightly more complicated. Still, I can understand why, for many, the idea of flying over 400 miles per hour several miles above the surface makes people nervous. In fact, some friends tell me they have to come to terms with their inevitable death just to sit on an airplane. To them, just the idea of giving up control, the idea of putting your faith in the hands of a stranger is… disconcerting.
As you probably know, fear tends to make us imagine the worst-case scenario. Because of this, thoughts of crashing or other imminent disasters only add to the maelstrom of anxiety the already fear-ridden traveler might experience. Often, against our will, we’re forced to imagine catastrophe. Sometimes, however, what we imagine happening, that singular event that’s sure to end in our demise, is only frightening because we don’t understand it.
Today, if I’m able to assuage even a fraction of fear for someone. If I can help someone experience aviation like I do, full of wonder and enthusiasm, rather than trepidation. I’ll consider this video a success. So, how do I hope to do that? Well, by explaining away some of these fearful thoughts. Like, for example…
What happens if we lose an engine?
Let me explain.
Like these videos? Support the channel on Patreon!
/ flightdojo
Follow me on Instagram to get a taste of the airline pilot life:
/ flybenfly
SOURCES
www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/te...
www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat...
www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...
www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/m...
www.faa.gov/data_research/res...
fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0019.pdf
CHAPTER
00:00 - Start
01:45 - Single Engine Safety
05:05 - Decision Speed
07:24 - Departure/En Route
10:28 - Exceptions
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
First, I don't disagree that in almost all cases an engine failure is an inconvenience rather than a calamity. But only if the failure is benign. United 1175 is a good example of a failure which had unforeseen consequences. If they had been lower or further from HNL when their engine threw a blade and trashed the cowling they would have had to ditch. JL46E in 1993, a 747-121, lost an engine on departure from Anchorage in severe turbulence. As the engine departed the aircraft it trashed some of the leading edge. The crew did a quick return and a heavy landing. But during the return, while dumping fuel, they were losing altitude and were close to losing another engine from overheat. But these are a few exceptions in many engine failures. If I was on an aircraft that lost an engine I'd assume nothing bad would happen. But even though nothing bad wis likely to happen... a friend of a friend was a 777 captain, now retired. He lost an engine in the mid Atlantic and diverted for Keflavik (BIKF). He said he knew the numbers, and the aircraft still flew well. But he also said it was the longest two hours of his life, wondering if the other engine would also fail due to some common issue.
A few years ago, I was flying from Santiago Chile to Lima Peru in a Lan Chile 737. Keep in mind that I am an ex QANTAS Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. During cruise, I noticed a sudden onset of high frequency vibration, which increased and decreased as, I suspect, the Flight Crew tried different power settings. After a minute or so the vibration stopped and the heat haze from the left engine exhaust disappeared. Flight continued to Lima, normal landing and taxy to the terminal. I was probably the only passenger who was aware if the IFSD.
I hate flying. Your explanation in the beginning was right on cue. I had an old friend/boss who flew a Polaris Turbo Prop. Said it was the safest plane in the world. Flew from Chino, Ca to Las Vegas, NV for a business trip. He became aware of my fears and asked me why; I explained sitting in a tube as a sack of potatoes, in a seat, helpless in the hands of a 'stranger', never knowing anything about the flight etc; was never my thing. I told him I was a heavy flight simulator participant; if I had some view of the cockpit, to see the gauges and pilots, I would feel much better. As if I had more 'control' over the flight. The day I showed up to the plane, he told me he was not going to be able to fly. My heart dropped. He personally introduced me to his best friend who was going to fly the plane; He was an Retired Navy F-14, Top Gun Qualified, Fighter pilot. Funny thing... I too was previous Navy - A Submarine Sailor. We both had opposite fears. LOL !
Back to the "Safest plane in the world" comment. A year later flying out of Colorado, during a snowfall, He and his son were flying out after finishing up some last minute decorations for the sons wedding. The plane took off and veered heavily to the right and harpooned into the ground, leaving only a black smudge on the face of the earth. It was almost like he had bad mechanical failure on takeoff; as he was a very experienced pilot.
It was a sad day for the company and family. We were a small Mom/Pop shop and were really close. Things were never the same after.
If one engine fails, you'd be delayed by an hour or so - but if both fail, you'd be stuck in the air all night 🙂
False. A take off is optional but a landing is inevitable.
Gotta say I really do feel safer when flying now. I never thought I'd like flying that much, but it's become one of my favourite things to do
Volcanic ash killed all engines on a 747 over Indonesia, but the engines recovered after some time. On the upside these days volcanic ash awareness is much better than it used to be back then.
The turbine blades were shot as they ended up coated with a glass like coating. The windscreens were also shot, the volcanic ash scratched them to opaque.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes. The reason the engines recovered was that when the temps in the turbines fell after shutdown, the ash-coating was shed as it had a different thermal expansion coefficient from the blades. I bet it was quite a feat to land with the windscreen damage.
@@akiko009 The Captain, Eric Moody was quoted as saying the landing was like navigating ones way up a badgers arse hole.. In the dark.
Great channel, I love your content. I'm sending this video to my GF because she is afraid to fly. She doesn't know what I know about this stuff and I want her to appreciate the majesty of flight and human progress. The clouds are truly beautiful at 35,000ft!
Great channel man. Always interesting subjects.
Monday through Friday job?
Deaaaaamn, you must be super senior Kang!
Good presentation, Captain.
Great production as always. I just love your dry humor. Thank you. Would love to sit next to you on a long haul!!!!
Flight Dojo is tops
Great video!
Another prevention for dual engine failure is that the two engines on an aircraft won't have the same engine hours or maintenance state. If there is a life cycle dependent problem with the engine, due to failure or fatigue of a certain part, it won't happen on both engines in close succession.
Love the channel Flight Dojo! One thing I always wondered if it were true or not: But can you, as the pilot, drop the engine? I've always heard airliner engines were attached via explosive bolts and could be jettisoned in an emergency.
No modern airliners that I’m aware of have this ability, but im not going to say with 100% certainty none ever have. Even if I could drop an engine that was on fire, I’m not sure I would, as there’s a good chance it may land on innocent people on the ground. Also, there would be a weight disparity across the longitudinal axis, and I’m not sure I’d like the drag penalty that would ensue due to deflected control surfaces.
I have heard modern day airline engines are designed to burn off the pylon, as in, a fire contained there should stay there due to us shutting the valves for every system connected to it, but I couldn’t find a source confirming this, so I didn’t include it in the video.
Not that I have anywhere near the expertise of our wonderful presenter here, but there are many additional reasons why I believe such jettisoning of engines would be rather contraindicative to things like safety.
For instance, I imagine putting many such small explosives in such proximity so many fuel sources would be concerning. The risk of a partial failure of detachment I feel would also be much worse than just simply keeping the engine on. The way plane wings are engineered to withstand forces in flight have the attached wings factored into their design, and may lead to the wing being much weaker in certain emergency conditions that would warrant an “engine-ejection,” much the same way that revving up a car engine or even braking causes accelerated wear if you do it in neutral. Several other reasons I can think of, but I’m sure you can understand my point.
My god but this is the silliest idea that I’ve ever heard of.
@@ibnewton8951 after making an untested gene therapy mandatory under threat of termination that has all liability removed and secret data for 75 years by government decree, right?
Cool moustache and great channel!
Thanks! It’s new.
@@flightdojo Suits you sir! 🙂
As a aircraft mechanic in training we view pilots as "Crisis Management Personal", what I am saying is that Pilots are "problem solvers of the sky". I will never let a computer or a program fly me around, I would always want a real human to fly me around because human ingenuity will always get me home safe. There are many Pilots who save the day but are never talked about because the news doesn't find it worthy.
To everyone who is afraid of flying; Take time to understand what take place in an airplane and check the airlines safety records of airlines. Note if Aircraft Maintenance and Pilots are happy then they are a good airlines that care about safety. Also I want the Flight Engineer to come back having 3 people in the cockpit is better then 2 people and a computer that can cause more problems.
Such an excellent review of a very common concern!
BTW, unless I've missed it, is there any data or visual material regarding an uncontained engine fire and severe damage to a respective wing? How frequently (or otherwise) the wing controls fail? Are there any feasible chances of a wing to be burned through and to fall off completely, which, of course is a total catastrophe for an airborne flying vessel.
Unless your company cuts back on maintenance and or modifies maintenance procedures that ultimately cause a major problem and a crash. Some companies hire the most junior pilots at the lowest amount of money possible and when they are needed they cannot do the job correctly. Paying a First Officer $17,000 a year is heinous and you get what you pay for. I’m retired now and I understand that the airlines are running pilots to extremes max duty and max flight time with min rest and max duty and max flight time again. It’s going to catch-up to a crew someday and people will DIE. This is a horrible situation. I’m just waiting for the BigOne. It’s a horrible situation for crews. Be Safe!
Having watched numerous videos of aviation mishaps, I've never heard an aircraft making an emergency landing declare "fuel and souls" prior to being asked. It seems to always be asked by ATC, so shouldn't giving that information should be done as a matter of routine by the aircraft?
Probably, but our minds our typically focused on more immediate concerns pertaining to whatever the failure is.
Yes, it’s an inevitable question ATC pesters the pilot with until they get their answer, even though it is a simple answer if they would just contact the airline/dispatcher who has a whole lot less going on. I keep the soul count right by my Flight number on the dash.
I just learned that tower facilities want fuel in pounds (to prepare crash rescue) and enroute ATC wants fuel in hours to plan routing/diversions.
Yes, i know that strapping yourself in an airliner is far less dangerous than doing it at the wheel of your car but ( i must say BTW that i 'm not afraid of flying), most accidents are due to one or more violations of the security/maintenance protocols. If it weren't for these issues, i'd feel even safer when flying. In a perfectly efficient and maintained aircraft, flown by perfectly trained and sufficiently rested pilots, a critical failure liable of endangering the lives of the passengers and crew is a really remote occurrence, that's agreed.
Wonder if any aircraft has had a dump engine option
might not be good to loose the dead weight on one side :)
I wonder if any engine manufacturer ever looked into the feasibility of creating feather-able turbofans. I know that any increase in complexity also increases cost/maintenance. But would it be worth pursuing?
I have never been frightened of flying. I am, however, very frightened of crashing.
😂 Speed doesn’t kill!
It’s the rate of deceleration 😊
Sorry but losing an engine in a 2 engine plane, its halfway to a glider.
Never liked the turn towards 2 engined overseas flights. I get that 4 engines is too much, but trijets were the sweetspot.
I do get that the plane can fly on a single engine, but its a reliability issue. The remaining engine will have to face higher stress to keep the plane in the air, whatever caused the failure of the 1st engine may happen on the otherone too (assuming not an external factor). When the 787 were having issues with the RR engines, this was one of the considerations, if one went out, the increased demand on the remaining engine could trigger the failure too.
Not to worry. The remaining engine will get you all the way to the crash site.
0:29 XD
What are they paying you ?
Halon in the cargo hold? rip any fucking pets then
Fire in the cargo hold? Pet's fucked anyway. Save the plane.
Good mojo with flight dojo ! Aircraft failure is not the problem , it's hitting the ground at 500 mph is the problem ...:) Great channel .
I'm bit dissapointed that you didn't talk about losing more than one engine, especially over an ocean as that's probably what concerns passengers the most.
Personally I've been wondering if modern 2 engined aircraft have a lower chance of failing all engines than a 1960s or 70s DC-8 or 747, with improved failure rates of engines and all that.
I worked at RAE Bedford when ETOPS was being discussed. We read the articles in Aviation Week and Flight International. I worked with people who developed the Vulcan, Concorde, Autoland, and the first glass cockpit. They thought that the assertion that modern jet engines were so reliable that it was inconceivable that two would fail on one flight was hilarious. The main argument was that, while it might well be true for a new 767, as the engines aged it was likely that having to run the remaining engine at high power could bring on another failure. But it's all down to statistics and maintenance. So far the dual failures have been due to other factors, not the engines. And they have been close enough to airports to save the aircraft. The longest possible flights are over Antarctica. Imagine your 787 or A350 loses an engine near the south pole and your nearest diversion airport is on Madagascar. Something like eight hours over the southern ocean on one engine. I'd prefer a quad jet for that trip.
😂 😂
Facts do nothing with emotions. Fear is THE emotion.
Unfortunately...
As seent every Election Day.
Or election week…erm month now.
Don't tell the passengers how few bolts hold on the wings and engines (spoilers it's under 10)
Do not let them know the tensile strength of those bolts either
Given the low number and the suggestion up-thread about jettisonable engines, it would still be a bad idea using explosive bolts. Related factoid: the Space Shuttle was held in place with eight bolts, four on each SRB. They were weak enough on their own that the failure of a single one would not impede liftoff; it would shear rather than explode.