A gremlin, apparently only one passenger saw the beast
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Commercial Airliners
- Thread starter TX Bill
- Start date
- Status
Good thing there weren't four of them
samsonthedog1
Player Valuation: £8m
I still think we need to have more than 2 engines on long over the water flights!
The A380 has four engines, but even the B777 ad B787 are fine with one engine for a long period of time--long enough to find an alternate landing site. If you lose both engines, however, you might want to put on your floaties.
I'll save you the time; TL/DR is the B787 and B777 are both certified to fly on one operating engine for 5.5 hours. Their range and altitude will likely decrease, but that should be enough time to reroute or continue to destination.
This explains a little more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/its-okay-if-your-airliner-loses-an-engine-2015-5
Really, it's OK if your airliner loses an engine
- Benjamin Zhang
- May 26, 2015, 7:02 PM
Over the weekend, both engines on a Singapore Airlines Airbus A330-343 lost power while cruising at 39,000 feet.
The crew was able to restart the engines but not before the aircraft lost 13,000 feet of altitude.
Fortunately, no one was injured, and the flight continued safely to its destination.
Airliner do sometimes lose power to both engines.
But it's a rare occurrence — these days, virtually unheard of.
What does happen, with slightly greater frequency, is the loss of a single engine.
Most of the time the pilot diverts to an emergency-landing location and no one is injured.
But there have been occasions when pilots chose to fly on to their destination instead of turning around.
In 2005, British Airways Flight 268, routed to London, lost one of its four engines while taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
Instead of returning to LAX, the pilot and his Boeing 747-400 continued toward Heathrow Airport. But because of unfavorable winds and operating conditions that caused the plane to burn too much fuel, the jumbo jet didn't have the gas to reach London and made an emergency landing in Manchester.
Long-distance and transoceanic flights have traditionally been flown by three- or four-engine wide-body airliners. This is because when it comes to the engine count on an airliner, aviation thinking dictates that there is safety in numbers.
But as modern turbofan engines have become more reliable, engine failures have become far less common. As a result, most airlines have turned to twin-engine mini-jumbos that are more fuel-efficient.
These days, the three-engine airliner has gone the way of the dinosaur, and the four-engine jumbo jets that once dominated the skies are well on their way toward extinction.
But engine failures do still happen. As terrifying as they may be for many passengers, losing one engine on a twin-engine airliner like the Boeing 787 isn't as serious as you might think.
When an aircraft is flying without one of its engines, it tends to fly at a lower altitude and work the remaining engine(s) harder. This makes the plane less fuel-efficient and reduces range. But the vast majority of twin-engine long-haul airliners can perform this maneuver with no significant reduction in capabilities.
Before a twin-engine airliner is allowed fly long-distance routes over large bodies of water or through uninhabited regions like the Arctic, it must be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, of FAA, for ETOPS or Extended range Twin Operations.
When an aircraft is certified, part of the assessment is based on the plane's performance when flying on a single engine.
For example, the 787Dreamliner is certified for ETOPS-330. This means that the aircraft can fly routes that take it as far as 330 minutes (five and a half hours) of single-engine flying time from the nearest viable airport.
Other twin-engine airliners, like the Boeing 777, are also certified for ETOPS 330. Airbus' popular A330 has been certified for 180 minutes of ETOPS flying, while the company's coming A350 is seeking 420 minutes of ETOPS certification.
Did a boston to heathrow flight the other week, would have flown to Manchester, but only thomas cook and AA available, cant believe they have 6 hour flights with no entertainment system, this one was with BA, and it was decent, edible food, good entertainment systems, was a strong wind at heathrow but the pilot nailed it
Coming back from Miami once, we were on a direct flight which took over nine hours and had no entertainment system; people were clucking!
To be fair the original plane had been grounded due to mechanical failure so there was an excuse, but most of the passengers really struggled.
We will probably be moving towards a network system that links to peoples devices I would imagine, over a hardware installation, I definately need them, even with Valium I don't really sleep on flights
Being in a seat at the back would have been interesting to say the least.
gonetomorrow
Player Valuation: £70m
I was on Concorde today. At the Flight museum E.Lothian. It was quiet so I had the aircraft to myself. Very cramped inside. It can't have been much fun although the high end food and drink would have helped.
- Status