[HN Gopher] United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet...
___________________________________________________________________
United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from
engine
Author : haunter
Score : 96 points
Date : 2021-02-20 22:25 UTC (34 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (avherald.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (avherald.com)
| infodocket wrote:
| You can hear the air/ground communications for this flight here
| via LiveATC.net. The pilots declare an emergency and then a
| mayday call beginning at 1:15 of the audio.
| https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1...
| just_steve_h wrote:
| I worked at a Large Internet Infrastructure Company for a long
| time, and saw software development practices that made my hair
| curl. All I could think was, "Gee, I'm glad we're not working on
| aviation software!"
|
| Seriously, though: software "engineering" could actually earn the
| name, if we had rigorous professional standards, regulatory
| oversight, and product liability.
| cracker_jacks wrote:
| Wake up, Donnie.
| just_steve_h wrote:
| Simon (the founder & proprietor of The Aviation Herald) is an
| incredible force for good in the world. His work on that site,
| for well over a decade now, is legendary.
| ortusdux wrote:
| I have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison
| damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
| haunter wrote:
| Recording of the ATC
| https://twitter.com/ryancaustin1/status/1363236118657957895?...
|
| Video of the flying debris
| https://twitter.com/jacdecnew/status/1363241028690599938?s=2...
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| "the right hand engine's (PW4077) inlet separated associated with
| the failure of the engine."
|
| This description is rather nonchalant but how can this possibly
| happen!? May this be related to the age of the aircraft?
|
| "Ground observers reported hearing the sound of an explosion like
| bang, smoke and saw the debris falling down."
|
| I mean, an engine about to explode sounds like the kind of thing
| that a routine pre-flight inspection should be able to catch...
| funkaster wrote:
| liveatc recording:
| https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1...
| saagarjha wrote:
| One of the best parts of everyone carrying a camera in their
| pocket is you can get high-resolution images of incidents like
| these as a matter of course.
| m00dy wrote:
| How's that possible it managed to fly with only one engine ?
| minxomat wrote:
| That is not a problem.
| xnx wrote:
| Amazingly, I believe planes are designed/certified to do
| everything (e.g. take off fully loaded) with only a single
| working engine.
| [deleted]
| S_A_P wrote:
| Planes _must_ be able to do this to be certified.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Well, assuming they have two+.
|
| A C-172 isn't gonna fly too far with an engine out.
| JCM9 wrote:
| It's designed to fly with only one engine. Not with great
| performance, but it will stay in the air. Routine procedure for
| twin engine aircraft.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Lesson's learned in the aviation industry are worth their
| weight in blood, so the engineers have learnt the hard way to
| plan for every reasonable eventuality.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| "Engines Turn or Passengers Swim"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Why do you think it has two engines in the first place?
| Sn0wCoder wrote:
| Come on, we all know so they can go faster.
| msla wrote:
| If that was the reason, they'd paint it red!
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They could go faster with a single larger engine. Why do
| you think they went with two engines instead of a single
| larger engine? Redundancy.
| ghaff wrote:
| Not clear to me that you'd design a commercial turbofan
| aircraft with one engine if you eliminated reliability
| requirements. You need to feed air to the engine and, to
| the degree you have wings, might as well have 2 engines.
| btgeekboy wrote:
| The other engine provides enough thrust to keep the plane
| airborne. The pilots (and likely other onboard systems)
| compensate for the asymmetric thrust with the rudder.
|
| As scary as it looks, this is one type of event that pilots
| routinely train for, both to get their initial multi-engine
| certification, and on their airlines' simulators.
| JCM9 wrote:
| The press will make a big deal out of this because of the
| spectacle of parts falling on people's lawns... but other than
| that this looks like a fairly routine engine out situation. Nice
| job by the crew.
| choeger wrote:
| And by "routine" you mean "standard when you lose an engine"
| not, "we lose an engine every other Friday", right? Because
| starting in a plane _is_ kind of scary enough, all things
| considered.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Uncontained engine failures are a big deal. Exactly because
| they're a risk to the plane, as debris can cause other
| failures, and a risk to people on the ground. Engines are
| specifically tested to see if they can contain these failures.
| This doesn't seem routine at all.
| JCM9 wrote:
| Yes, hence why I said the press will focus on this because of
| parts raining down. An airliner having an engine issue and
| returning single engine though is a routine thing... usually
| without missing parts.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Uncontained engine failures are cause to ground whole
| fleets of planes, even if the resulting emergency ended up
| mild. You're downplaying it way too much.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think you're both right. I think it's routine in thsy once
| the disaster occurred, the emergency procedures to get the
| plane safely landed were executed without issue.
|
| I'm guessing kind of like firefighters describing a call as a
| routine, by the books operation.
| larkinrichards wrote:
| I really appreciate focused news sites like avherald. Just the
| facts, a collection of photos and videos, straightforward.
|
| The video of the landing & the passengers cheering--- that huge
| sigh of relief. Brings a smile to my face.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| What, you don't like the anchor people on TV asking each other
| how they feel about every piece of news and making horrible
| puns at every opportunity? Or having expected announcements be
| reported as BREAKING NEWS?
| alkonaut wrote:
| Lucky it didn't happen half way. Could have been several hours on
| one engine and the other one shaking and on fire.
| [deleted]
| xxpor wrote:
| Luckily flight plans are always required to be within a certain
| number of minutes of a place to land, and are certified to
| operate on one engine for that period.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
| mrfusion wrote:
| How do you account for oceans?
| disantlor wrote:
| i think in part by having more than 2 engines on those
| flights
| jrockway wrote:
| By having airports on islands, or by pushing up the number
| of minutes that the engines are certified for higher.
| Tuxer wrote:
| Transoceanic aircraft need lots of ETOPS time. For example
| the boeing 777 (twin-engine, transoceanic) has an ETOPS of
| 330 minutes, so it always needs to be 330 min away from an
| airport (which is 11 hours of flight from airport A to
| airport B, not taking wind into account)
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| ETOPS accounts for oceans. Please read the link.
| ghaff wrote:
| The "certain number of minutes" includes being over oceans.
| If you're too many minutes, you can't fly there. ("Minutes"
| are fairly large. I believe at least one Airbus aircraft is
| now at 4 hours.)
| tshaddox wrote:
| Generally transatlantic jetliners have more than 2 engines,
| although I suppose that's beginning to change.
| [deleted]
| beervirus wrote:
| It's amazing that an aircraft can still fly pretty much normally
| and land safely after such a failure. Imagine if software were
| built with such resiliency.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-20 23:00 UTC)