JAL 787 on fire !!!! OMG WTF BBQ...

[Samurai_Jerk]

I have a fanny pack (AKA bum bag)

Allowing that I am simply not man enough to follow suit, do you find you tend to suck your teeth and wear your pants up above your navel with your shirt tucked tightly in when adorned with your fanny bag? BTW, best unwitting bad North Americanism ever, in MYHOMO. TOATS!!!!!!!!!! I just have a little A5/B5 document sized organiser pouch for it all, but it could fit in the back of my waistband as needed.

I have a Northface lumbar bag. Basically this one without the shoulder strap.

I originally bought it for cycling because I hate having stuff in my pockets when I'm riding my bike. However, I found it's a great way to get an extra carry-on onto a plane because they don't count it when you're wearing it.

[kurogane]

I have dabbled, but I just cannot find the courage to extra bag it. Plus having everything in one briefcase makes it all easier anyways. Nice bag, though.

[inflames]

Yes, fully agreed, and I would use any keys or pointed sticks in my pocket to blind and hopefully cripple angry plebs like Tsuru and inflames. Both of whom I adore, btw. Nobody matters at all, but people that think they do get instant Darwin Awards, and people that think their fag bags matter desrve to get hunted down and wheelchaired. But I do agree in (childish) principle that the airlines should get their shiite together.

I never said I would grab my bag, I said that I would punch out whichever dumbass told me to walk to the front of the airplane to get off when the wings are on fire. Basically the wings are a huge gas tank - including the area between wings, and if an engine is on fire you never know if it would spread to the wings (in which case you'd be fucked). Plus, even though gasoline burns at a lower temperature than other accelerants, I wouldn't want to be around it. Plus the fact that you're far more likely to die of carbon monoxide (or other shit burning) than of the flames themselves. In an emergency, the goal is to get off the airplane ASAP.

[Wage Slave]

Gasoline? What gasoline? Jet engines run on kerosene with a few additives. And it burns pretty well. And yes there is a lot of it in the wings when a plane is taking off so that's a severe worry.

What I don't get is why you feel it's useful or even necessary to punch someone who tells you to do something stupid. Why not just say no and do the opposite to what they are saying? Perhaps that's the culture where you come from but it seems a bit OTT.

Meanwhile nothing from BA or GE on why that engine might have exploded halfway down the runway while taking off. Odd.

[Salty]

Gasoline? What gasoline? Jet engines run on kerosene with a few additives. And it burns pretty well. And yes there is a lot of it in the wings when a plane is taking off so that's a severe worry.

What I don't get is why you feel it's useful or even necessary to punch someone who tells you to do something stupid. Why not just say no and do the opposite to what they are saying? Perhaps that's the culture where you come from but it seems a bit OTT.

Meanwhile nothing from BA or GE on why that engine might have exploded halfway down the runway while taking off. Odd.

I believe they are waiting for the Discovery channel to lock in the reporting rights....

[Russell]

Just survived four plane rides this week.

But that is normal, I understand.

These type of accidents are extremely rare, fortunately.

[Coligny]

The burning issue is not the behavior of the passengers! People will be people. It's up to aircraft designers to design safety into their products.

The burning issue is the engine fault and the design of the overhead lockers - Perhaps they should lock during takeoff and landing.

image.jpg

Sometimes... Life gets in the way... Especially since most maintenance is subcontracted to illiterate chinks for costs reasons.

Ok, so apparently, it was more a huge case of "lack of fuck given"

HOT FIRE
EXCLUSIVE: BOEING AND GE WARNED ABOUT AIRPLANE ENGINE THAT EXPLODED
BY CLIVE IRVING 09.14.159:23 AM ET

Moar here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... loded.html

The Daily Beast has learned that a version of the General Electric engine that failed was the subject of a safety warning from the Federal Aviation Administration four years ago.

The GE staff was promptly given generous job offers by Tepco...

[Tsuru]

Which turned out to be untrue, if you read the actual reply by GE. Quality reporting there, brought to you by the Daily Beast.

[Coligny]

Which turned out to be untrue, if you read the actual reply by GE. Quality reporting there, brought to you by the Daily Beast.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated in response to a statement from General Electric and the FAA.

One thing didn't change... The engine did manage to shit himself.

And the compressor spool that failed was supposed to be a better version pre dating the updated version that include the design flaw. Those guys go out of their ways to fuck up...

[Salty]

So, it looks like an engine failure, but I have yet to see any reports that 777s have been grounded.

Initial examination of the left engine revealed multiple breaches of the engine case in the area around the high pressure compressor.

Examination of the material recovered from runway found several pieces of the high pressure compressor spool (approximately 7-8 inches in length).

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases ... 50910.aspx

[Tsuru]

Which turned out to be untrue, if you read the actual reply by GE. Quality reporting there, brought to you by the Daily Beast.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated in response to a statement from General Electric and the FAA.

One thing didn't change... The engine did manage to shit himself.

And the compressor spool that failed was supposed to be a better version pre dating the updated version that include the design flaw. Those guys go out of their ways to fuck up...

Shit happens, even some faults slip through the multiple safety nets. Aircraft systems and engines are designed not to fail with a probability lower than 1:10^-9, and if it is not safe or reliable enough these things get redesigned, and retrofitted all the time. And even then there is a design philosophy called "safe fail" (in addition to "failsafe") at the core of aircraft design.

The main problem is that the FAA and other authorities these days are far too cozy with the manufacturers and airlines to show their teeth, and demand changes which cost money to be implemented with real urgency. In most western countries, they are a shadow of their former selves in that respect. The upshot is that passenger planes and the engines that power them are designed, built and (for the most part) operated by dedicated people who pride themselves in providing the safest mode of transport the world has ever seen, even if the XAAs drop the ball or some aspects of airline management actively corrode safety. Fortunately, the bottom line is still that a smoking hole in the ground is in nobody's interest.
There are some people who allege that there would have been a disaster if the explosion happened later, when the airplane was committed to fly, or already in the air. I can tell you with utmost certainty that this is not the case. The engine can explode into a million pieces and burn itself off the pylon, the aircraft will continue to fly, turn around and land safely. The absolute worst that will happen in today's aircraft is that high-energy debris might penetrate the cabin and injure people who happen to be in the line of fire, but the airplane as a whole is designed to handle an exploding and burning engine just fine.

At the end of the day, everyone walked away.

[Coligny]

image.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -fire.html

[Coligny]

Another week, another Boing with some engine on fire...

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-ne ... ws-6464605

image.jpg

[Wage Slave]

I can tell you with utmost certainty that this is not the case. The engine can explode into a million pieces and burn itself off the pylon, the aircraft will continue to fly, turn around and land safely. The absolute worst that will happen in today's aircraft is that high-energy debris might penetrate the cabin and injure people who happen to be in the line of fire, but the airplane as a whole is designed to handle an exploding and burning engine just fine.

But what about if the exploding engine sets the fuel and/or the aircraft on fire. And that's what seemed to happen in Las Vegas. How well is it going to fly then? And what are the passengers going to breathe? I wouldn't have though a bit of extra oxygen is going to do a lot of good. Full face mask and airtank job.

[Coligny]

The pict i posted is the result of the fire that was immediately taken care of by the firetrucks few second after it was noticed and the takeoff aborted.

In flight, they would have needed time to turn around, dump fuel, line up and land. Pretty sure they would have been fucked... Cargo bay on fire... From outside... Good luck even extending the landing gear...

[Wage Slave]

Yes, exactly. A fire that well established and all the fuel still on board ......

Incidently, although there is no doubt they can fly and land under complete control on one engine, what about if one out of two fails during take-off? It would seem to be a time when you do actually need close to maximum power if you are not going to run out of nice smooth runway.

And the only time I was in a jet that lost one engine it took a while for the pilot to get back to level flight. We also lost quite a lot of height before everything was trimmed nicely again and we climbed back to where we were. In the meantime people in the cabin were starting to panic - it was obvious something was wrong. If that happens during or just after take off is there enough height and margin to do all that?

[Tsuru]

I can tell you with utmost certainty that this is not the case. The engine can explode into a million pieces and burn itself off the pylon, the aircraft will continue to fly, turn around and land safely. The absolute worst that will happen in today's aircraft is that high-energy debris might penetrate the cabin and injure people who happen to be in the line of fire, but the airplane as a whole is designed to handle an exploding and burning engine just fine.

But what about if the exploding engine sets the fuel and/or the aircraft on fire. And that's what seemed to happen in Las Vegas. How well is it going to fly then? And what are the passengers going to breathe? I wouldn't have though a bit of extra oxygen is going to do a lot of good. Full face mask and airtank job.

None of the fuel which was in the wing burned. There is no oxygen in an airliner's fuel tank; it is all removed by nitrogen inerting systems mandated on new planes in the wake of TWA800. If an engine catches fire in the air at hundreds of mph, all of the heat energy, spilled fuel and most of the bits will be lost to the ambient air. If an aircraft is sitting still on the ground in a puddle of its own fuel, this is what you get, and that is exactly what happened. Note that only the fuel which was in the engine's fuel system was able to leak out: pulling the fire handles immediately shuts off the supply from the tank at the wing spar valve.
In addition to that, the fire had not been burning for "seconds", it had been burning for well over two minutes as it always takes a few minutes for the fire services to respond, even at an international airport. none of the flames and smoke penetrated the passenger or cargo compartments: only the wing/body fairing panels were burned through. The actual sctructure holding all the meat is underneath and intact.

To the gentleman asking about performance:
All aircraft takeoff weights are calculated for the loss of one engine at the exact calculated point where an aircraft is committed to taking off in those atmopheric conditions from that particular runway, and it will climb away just fine, clearing all obstacles and mountains which may be in the way. A twin engine airliner like the 777 especially, even more so than a 747, as weird as that may sound. A dual engine failure is calculated and demonstrated to be so extremly unlikely twin-engined aircraft have been cleared to cross the pacific ocean with only two engines for over a decade now. (Even though a 747 has been tested so extensively it has performance figures in the pilot's manuals to even cover a dual engine failure scenario.)

Don't let the pictures scare you.

[Wage Slave]

I can't say I am completely convinced - but I'll happily bow to superior knowledge. However, if you could clear up two points which still make me think that if that engine had exploded seconds later there would have been a real problem:

1. You say the aircraft was sitting in a pool of it's own fuel and that's what was burning. It looks to my inexpert eyes more like the plane itself was on fire.

2. It's one thing to take off with one engine if that's what you planned from the start. Surely it's entirely another to find you have only one engine half way through the process.

[Coligny]

It's a more dynamic process than you picture it i think.

At speed 0 taking of with half engine is not allowed (because engine failure below V1 -commit to fly speed- is not)

In case of failure during take off. You are already in motion and have gained a capital of inertia. So below v1 this inertia works against you to stop he plane before the end of the runway. But for a failure over v1 you use this capital with the thrust of the remaining engine to get airborne. Now there might be not guarantee that you can climb fast enough to clear the hills at the end of the runway... But you are airborne...

[Salty]

It's a more dynamic process than you picture it i think.

At speed 0 taking of with half engine is not allowed (because engine failure below V1 -commit to fly speed- is not)

In case of failure during take off. You are already in motion and have gained a capital of inertia. So below v1 this inertia works against you to stop he plane before the end of the runway. But for a failure over v1 you use this capital with the thrust of the remaining engine to get airborne. Now there might be not guarantee that you can climb fast enough to clear the hills at the end of the runway... But you are airborne...

v1 doesn`t guarantee getting airborn - but rather guarantees a crash if you do not get airborn - right? So the question would be, does one engine at v1 get you airborne? This I don`t know....

[Coligny]

That would be V2, the minimum takeoff speed with one engine fubared.

Edit, I don't know the regulatory shit (since on sims, i just jettison the payload, IRL i'd be mostly dead -mono only- and it's tsuru's ballpark). But something tells me that despite current world state of insanity if v2 was 100% unreachable with one engine less after v1 then v1 would not concern engine failure because even if you know you don't have the length to properly stop it's most of the time better to brake as much as possible then overshoot the runway than taking off a bit and crash stalling to the ground (assymetrically if possible for maximum damage) plus most airport have some grass at the end that swallow landing gears for lunch and help stopping.

For example in Chubu centrair, what you prefer, driving into the sea at decreasing speed or falling down in the soup at a shitty angle ? Knowing that i can't make it to v2 i'd try a handbrake drift turn at the end of the runway over anything involving pretend flying...

[Salty]

That would be V2, the minimum takeoff speed with one engine fubared.

Edit, I don't know the regulatory shit (since on sims, i just jettison the payload, IRL i'd be mostly dead -mono only- and it's tsuru's ballpark). But something tells me that despite current world state of insanity if v2 was 100% unreachable with one engine less after v1 then v1 would not concern engine failure because even if you know you don't have the length to properly stop it's most of the time better to brake as much as possible then overshoot the runway than taking off a bit and crash stalling to the ground (assymetrically if possible for maximum damage) plus most airport have some grass at the end that swallow landing gears for lunch and help stopping.

For example in Chubu centrair, what you prefer, driving into the sea at decreasing speed or falling down in the soup at a shitty angle ? Knowing that i can't make it to v2 i'd try a handbrake drift turn at the end of the runway over anything involving pretend flying...

Agreed - why I might even fold the landing gear. At least the front one might colapse if still on the ground.

[Russell]

I always like those discussions between simulator-pilots...

[Coligny]

After few misshaps I think all airplanes have a landing retract lock. (Air/ground safety sensor) which prevent this...

[Salty]

After few misshaps I think all airplanes have a landing retract lock. (Air/ground safety sensor) which prevent this...

Sheet, foiled again. I`ll just have to careen it into a grade school or something....

[Coligny]

I recommend a daycare or an orphanage instead...

[Tsuru]

It's one thing to take off with one engine if that's what you planned from the start. Surely it's entirely another to find you have only one engine half way through the process.

The maximum amount of fuel and payload an aircraft is allowed to takeoff with, is adjusted depending on a large number of factors, most of them atmospheric. A takeoff with a large, modern aircraft from an international airport is almost never limited by aircraft performance. In fact, a modern aircraft has so much power that the actual takeoff thrust required from the engines in order to take off from the runway distance available while meeting all the safety requirements, is actually reduced most of the time to reduce the temperature in the turbine and save engine wear.

The requirement is that if an engine loses all of its thrust at V1, the aircraft can still accelerate to Vr, rotate, climb out at V2 and achieve 35ft above the ground before the end of the runway on all of its remaining engines, as well as clearing all obstacles and terrain which may be in the way after that. If an engine quits right at V1, you can even still decide to stop safely if you wait for two seconds after V1, altough stopping at this point is usually more dangerous than flying, even with an engine on fire.

The most dangerous situation in today's airliners is a fire in the cabin (passenger deck or cargo deck) at altitude over the ocean. Note that engine fires are not part of this: in the event the fire cannot be extinguished by cutting off all air, electric, hydraulic and fuel lines to it and emptying two fire exinguishers into it they can literally keep burning until they fall off.

[Salty]

Spoilt sport – we were aiming for a combined daycare center and retirement village….

[Coligny]

I thought the biggest threat today for an airliner was an arab with a box cutter...

Damn youze TSA and your lies...

[Tsuru]

If we're going to count external threats, it seems the biggest one is some Russians ragtag rebel alliance armed with SA-11 missiles.