|Be not wise in |
thine own eyes
Seems with one engine out, they would have had twice as much fuel as needed.
They would have made it to Hawaii and had fuel to burn.
Although it looks bad, it does look like the engine did it’s job.
Dropped cowling and other parts but fan blades and turbine blades look to have been contained within the engine.
All joking aside, I do believe being halfway over there they would have still been able to make Hawaii.
It appears all flight controls were still in good shape.
“We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,”
Pres. Select, Joe Biden
United will probably buy him a shiny new one.
הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים
|Seeker of Clarity|
Finders keepers! That would make an AMAZING fire ring.
|Be Like Mike|
“Eddie wasn’t sure what all the fuss was about, he now had Ring at his front door like everyone else but it didn’t seem very useful.”
"Structural engineering is the art of moulding materials we don't understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot really access, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." Dr. A. R. Dykes
In the picture, the truck looked untouched.
No doubt Farmers Insurance knows a thing or two about it.
|To all of you who are serving or have served our country, Thank You|
|Back, and |
to the left
Oceanic trips are plotted with "equal time points," or ETP's. These are points at which the flight will either turn back for one alternate airport, or continue to another. Typically three ETP's are calcualted; one for an engine loss, one for depressurization, and one for other circumstances (we do a one-engine, and a two-engine ETP, plus a depressurization ETP). The flight must have adequate fuel to divert to the alternate. The flight is capable of flying with an engine-out, but may not maintain it's altitude; a lower altitude increases fuel burn, and an engine-out requires higher power on the operating engine, increasing fuel burn on the operating engine.
As for the fire...a turbine engine, by definition, is on fire all the time. In this case, one can just see some of it. Every flight is planned for the loss of an engine.
That Boeing 777-200, registration N772UA, was built in 1994 and is powered by PW4000 engines. N773UA is the replacement aircraft for the UA DEN-HNL flight, the same aircraft that had a similar problem over Hawaii in 2018. According to aviation-safety.net, in that year, N773UA in its UA Flight 1175 from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), California to Honolulu-Daniel K. Inouye International Airport (HNL), Hawaii, experienced an in-flight separation of a fan blade and subsequent loss of the inlet and fan cowls of the right engine, a Pratt & Whitney PW4077.
Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen, but his country's cause”.
And of course, "Scary Mary" Schiavo has her mug all over the TV spouting off unadulterated ignorant bullshit about the incident, as she always does. In all the years she's been putting on her dramas, I've yet to hear her get a single thing correct. It may have happened by accident somewhere, much like the stopped click twice a day, but what an idiot.
"No matter where you go - there you are"
The fan is completely gone (uncontained engine
failure) could have been much worse if fan debris
entered to cabin
Question for the commercial pilots on here...
When the plane declared a Mayday and relayed their intention to return to DIA the tower asked which way they would turn, right or left and they chose to make a left hand turn. The tower had given them the option to go either way.
Was that decision based on which engine went out or is that some sort of standard emergency return protocol?
Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina
In a light twin, one would generally turn in the direction of the good engine: if the right engine has failed, turn left. In a transport category airplane it doesn't matter as much.
The reason for the bank toward the good engine (up to 5 degrees in a light twin) is because of asymmetric thrust; the vertical component of lift is used to offset the asymmetric thrust. In a large airplane, generally there's some rudder trim input, but a bank isn't flown.
The direction of turn will depend on the approach desired, whether fuel dump is required, and is also influenced by the engine-out procedures that the operator has. These procedures aren't something that air traffic control will know; these are procedures specific to the operator, and are actions to be taken in the event of an engine failure while departing off a particular runway. They may call for a level-off altitude to retract flaps and a turn or series of turn for terrain, as initial actions after the engine loss. The crew in such cases will inform air traffic control of their intentions, handle the immediate-action or stabilization items, then begin setting up for a return, as required.
Many checklists have memory items or immediate-action items covering several events in one, for a case like this; engine fire, failure, or severe damage. In this case, severe damage would be appropriate, and doubtless the crew received a fire warning as well. The actions to be taken include retarding the power lever for the affected engine to idle, cutting off fuel, and then cutting off electrical, hydraulic, and bleed air to that engine pylon. With a fire indication, discharge of one or both fire bottles will follow. If the fire is still in progress, the crew may elect to make an immediate return, landing overweight, possibly opposite direction of departure. Choices maybe influenced by weather (wind and visibility in particular), nature of the emergency, approaches available, and so on. For an immediate return, especially an overweight landing if the decision is made to forgo dumping fuel to reduce landing weight, a higher approach speed will be required, as will a longer landing distance, more brake energy, etc. Should reverse be used, it's impacted by wind direction, and wind can be used to benefit when landing with asymmetric thrust. The direction of turn may be influenced by the runway choice, a decision which is made before engine start and briefed long before departure.
Here's a case exactly 26 years ago when a British Airways 747 lost an engine on take off at LAX but continued over the Atlantic on three engines. The 747 can fly on three but the FAA was not pleased.
Sorry, my PC won't let me copy and paste the article.
In the case of a precautionary shutdown, or caging an engine without an immediate threat (fire, etc), the requirement isn't an immediate landing, but landing at the nearest suitable airport. The british airways crew took that a bit further: To fly to JFK under power with three engines would be about the same fuel loss as jettisoning fuel at LA and returning to land there.
The 747 can continue on three, though it will have the same fuel burn as operating on four (and if on two engines, will have the same fuel burn as operating on four, as well), roughly speaking. Two engines out on the same side on the 747 is demanding.
There are other factors involved in engine loss: what caused the loss, and can it affect other engines (fuel related? Damage from one engine causing a loss on another?), and also what systems are lost. On large airplanes, multiple hydraulic systems are used, for example: various systems have different functions. Loss of a system may impact specific functions like landing gear, braking steering, etc.
The nearest suitable runway may not be the nearest, due to weather, runway orientation with respect to wind, crash-rescue services, maintenance or support available after landing, instrument approaches available, and so on.
In the case of severe damage, such as the UAL 777-200 at Denver, the question will remain what may be damaged should the flight continue. That may be mechanical damage from additional parts separation, fire, etc. Flights have been lost when the flight took time to prepare for landing, such as Swiss Air off Nova Scotia, when attempting to dump fuel prior to landing in an MD-11. Everyone died. UPS 6 crashed in Dubai after they developed a cargo fire while abeam Doha, climbing north over the Persian Gulf. Had they opted for an immediate landing in Qatar instead of attempting to return to UAE, they would quite possibly have survived. Time is critical in some cases, and in other cases, rushing has resulted in disaster.
There's an old joke about two businessmen on board a 747, when there's a bang and smoke on the right, and the captain announces that he's shut down one engine. Not to worry, the captain says, the airplane will function just fine on three engines. The flight will be delayed about one hour. Not long later, there's another bang and the captain anounces that he as shut down a second engine. Not to worry, he says, the airplane is perfectly capable, but the flight will arrive two hours late. Murphy rears his head, a third engine goes, and the captain makes the same anouncement to reassure his passsengers. Now the flight will be several hours late.
"That's just great," one businessman says to the other. "If we lose the fourth one, we'll be up here all day."
No guitars were injured.
You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
I don't have a hosting service at the moment, but in this article you can see where the cab got hit. From the side view, the truck does indeed, look untouched.
Mom told me if I can't say anything nice, don't say anything.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
— Thomas Paine
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4|