[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)