$$$$$$ Before Passenger safety

[kg4kww]

This is plain and simple neglect for passenger safety and all to save $$$$.

$$$$$ more important than passenger safety (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7064429/)

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

A 747 can fly on 2 engines so still they had a spare. Grounding the aircraft under the circumstances would have cost more than money considering passenger delays. The media hype does it again.

BTW, engine oil is topped off at every stop, Mobile One at Newark NJ. (;->) Now does that tell you I worked closely with aircraft there and often spoke with the mechanics? Oh, if you ever saw one of those massive GE engines sitting on a lift with the cowling off it's quite impressive.

Flying at the airport, grounded in Amateur Radio de Warren KB2VXA

[w2wtf]

$$$$$$ Before Passenger safety........

And whats new??.....

http://www.10-7.com/humor/photopages/OVERLOAD.jpg

[K8YS]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Mar. 04 2005,10:10)]This is plain and simple neglect for passenger safety and all to save $$$$.
oh yea, and I am sure that the pilot and flight crew were there to kill all the passengers too.

You want to see interesting problems, do a search for a China Airlines 737 that was grounded in Frankfort - seems they repaired the engine with too much duct tape. The Germans refused to allow it to fly across German territory.

[al2n]

An engine going out is not that big of a deal. It happens more than you know.

The real threat to ariline safety are all these bag handlers that work for the contract outfits. No benefits, poor wages. Most who work for them are of foreign origin, many from countries that hate America. How much money would it take for one of them to place a "package" on an aircraft?

If another terrorist attack using aircraft is in the works, you can bet that the security leak will happen not in the terminal, but out on the ramp with those that have free access to every part of that aircraft.

[kg4kww]

1RO your comments bother me alot. How do you know
these things?

The pilot should have made groud controllers aware of the problem and aborted the flight. That's just good common sense.

[al2n]

Simple.

I work for a major airline.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Mar. 04 2005,14:13)]1RO your comments bother me alot. How do you know
these things?

The pilot should have made groud controllers aware of the problem and aborted the flight. That's just good common sense.
Greg,

Tell us again, how many years were you a jet mech?

I beleave that the new 7E7 is designed to fly safely on ONE engine!

"Much Ado About Nothing"

BTW, don't even get me started on the FAA morons.

[kg4kww]

Gary, if you had been on that plane or had family on that plane, you would be singing a diff tune.

[W0LPQ]

KWW: You need to do some research on the FAA web sites concerning aircraft certifications. Indeed as KL1RO has read (so have I but been a year or so), the 777 also will fly on one engine. Granted it is not the fastest with just one. Many commercial aircraft are tested before all the certification efforts are completed, and one engine out is a normal test (and it better fly on one)..!

Years ago, when the 727 was being certified, they placed a large plank on the lower rear end and took off. The object was to drag the plank on the ground and look for aircraft buckling. The 727 had enough power with 3 normal engines to basically grind the plank down the the aircraft skin with no other damage. Good trick to keep the airplane at full take-off power and hold the airplane on the ground .... in a take-off configuration.

I have flown military and one civilian aircraft with an engine out. By the way, the 727 would fly just fine with the center engine out. One problem that happens with an engine out it aircraft yaw. Autopilot systems are designed to correct for this and crank in bunches of rudder to compensate for this yawing effect.

As RO suggests, don't get us started on some of the FAA actions of late.

I have been involved with 2 aircraft certifications and let me tell you, t'ain't easy Magee..! Even today, software has to be documented and certified. And ... it gets worse by the day.

73

Bill, WØLPQ
Collins Avionics Field Service, Retired

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Mar. 04 2005,17:17)]Gary, if you had been on that plane or had family on that plane, you would be singing a diff tune.
Greg,

I have been in Naval Aviation many years and have been on aircraft that do that on a regular bases.

P-3 Orion Sub Hunter Aircraft is a four engine turbo prop that only uses TWO engines when on patrol. Yep, they shut the outboard engines down, ON PURPOSE .

You get all worried on a multi engine aircraft when ONE engine gets shut down, and we have sailors in the Navy that NEVER give it a second thought-EVERY DAY.

All that worry for nothing.

[kg4kww]

Thanks for the info guys. However, all pilots don't have military training and may not be able to properly control the plane. So, therefore as a consumer I'm concerned because, I for one don't like to test providence, or should I say the pilots skills. I assume that these aircraft, could glide and land safely if all engines were to shut down, correct?

If we have all these wonderful saftey backups on aircraft then why do we have crashes due to pilot error?

I flew to Japan 4 years ago non stop from O'Hare on a 747, it was a very smooth and comfortable flight. I flew on All Nippon and had a great time.

My father, was an aircraft mechanic for over 30 years and was a aircraft mechanic during WWII in the army air corps. So, I do understand about flying with a engine out, but, this isn't the military, it's commerical.

[wa4brl]

KWW: This is not news, nor even cause for concern. Airliners have for years been designed to fly safely -- and complete their routes -- with an engine out. The original specifications for the DC-3 included the REQUIREMENT that it be able to fly the Los Angeles to Denver route (over the Rockies!) on one engine. Douglas met this requirement.

That was in the 1930's, mind you. The advances in aviation technology since that time have been AWESOME! You smiply would not believe what modern airliners are capable of. What is daily routine for the industry would simply astound the lay public (in a good way).

So much anxiety about flying is born of ignorance. The all-time greatest fallacy about airplanes is that if the engine fails, the plane will fall out of the sky. I fly Cessna 172's. After flying many times with me, my daughter confessed this very fear to me while we were flying from Tappahannock (W79) to New Kent (W96) in Virginia. Indeed, she said this thought bothered her most when we were crossing a body of water.

At that very moment, the gentle turns of the Pamunkey river were in plain view ahead, so I made the most of a teaching opportunity. First, I explained that the plane doesn't fall if the engine quits, it keeps on flying in a gentle glide. We were cruising at about 4000 feet, so I demonstrated by pulling the throttle back to idle. (I also added carb heat and retrimmed for maximum glide speed -- about 65 Kts.)

A Cessna 172 has a glide ratio of 10:1. This means that, fully loaded, for every foot of altitude, it will glide 10 feet forward. So at 4000 feet, we had a circle with an 8-mile radius, about 25 square miles, in which to choose a landing site. This glide angle is so gentle, you don'e even perceive the descent. I asked my daughter to choose a nice big farm field ahead to imagine gliding into for a landing. Of course, we glided right past that field (and over the Pamunkey) with 3000 feet of altitude to spare!

By this time, she understood the an engine failure in this kind of sitiation was not a crisis situation. By the time we were down to 1200', we were over New Kent Airport, so I circled until we were at pattern altitude (about 950'), flew a normal pattern and landed -- all with the engine at idle. Of course, I could have used the engine at any time simply by advancing the throttle, so there was no impending peril had I miscalculated the approach. Needless to say, my daughter is no longer unduly concerned by the prospect of engine failure.

To add another point to this overly long story: commercial airliners (even the big jets) have mugn better glide ratios due to their high speed and low drag. Figures from 16:1 with flaps and gear down to 36:1 clean and sleek are typical. And airliners cruise at much higher altitudes. Starting to feel safe yet? At 35000 feet with complete engine failure, a jet airliner has a circle with a radius of about 238 miles (750 square miles!) to find an airport and land.

Remember the Canadian DC-10 that ran out of fuel during a regular run? The pilot flew it to a decommisioned air force base and landed on it's runway -- much to the surprise of the people using it for go-kart races!

Remember, the most dangerous part of any flight is driving to and from the airport!

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Mar. 04 2005,21:37)]Thanks for the info guys. However, all pilots don't have military training and may not be able to properly control the plane. So, therefore as a consumer I'm concerned because, I for one don't like to test providence, or should I say the pilots skills. I assume that these aircraft, could glide and land safely if all engines were to shut down, correct?

We are only taking about ONE and ONLY ONE engine being shut down. Let's focus on this, Okay?

We all do something far more dangerous everyday than riding in a aircraft with one engine shut down. It's called "Driving". Did you know that you have a greater chance of getting into a automobile accident than crashing in an aircraft? Talk about testing providence. Whew! The Odds of you drowning in a bathtub are better than in a aircraft crashing with just one engine shut down.

If you don't want to "test providence" than don't drive and dont take a bath.

[w2wtf]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Mar. 04 2005,21:37)]Thanks for the info guys. However, all pilots don't have military training and may not be able to properly control the plane. So, therefore as a consumer I'm concerned because, I for one don't like to test providence, or should I say the pilots skills. I assume that these aircraft, could glide and land safely if all engines were to shut down, correct?

If we have all these wonderful saftey backups on aircraft then why do we have crashes due to pilot error?

I flew to Japan 4 years ago non stop from O'Hare on a 747, it was a very smooth and comfortable flight. I flew on All Nippon and had a great time.

My father, was an aircraft mechanic for over 30 years and was a aircraft mechanic during WWII in the army air corps. So, I do understand about flying with a engine out, but, this isn't the military, it's commerical.
KWW,
I worked on my pilots license in college and even managed to collect quite a few hours in a few small twin engine aircraft (mainly a 1971 Twin Commanche) , ANY pilot who flies ANYTING with more than one engine learns how to handle and even land the airplane if one of the engines fails. Some people crash because they were absent (minded) that day, most often its panic followed by a badly thought out decision, or a total freeze up and failure to act. Of course what produces this situation the quickest for a engine to die at takeoff.(crap!! hold on this is gonna suck!!). I loved flying but fuel prices and purchasing a house kinda killed it for me.....

[W0LPQ]

KWW and others not that "in" to flying, stop by a news stand and find a copy of the AOPA Magazine, Flying, Private Pilot or any other flight magazine and look for ads of flight schools.

Simuflite, Flight Safety, and Comair Academy are a couple that come to mind.

These schools teach you how to handle an engine out situation. #It is part of their FAA Certification .. they have to do it ... and they do it well.

Once you get your Comm-Multi rating then for each aircraft you want to fly, you have to get your Type Rating. #It is not cheap to do this and usually, but not always, an airline may help you. #This also applies to the corporate guys. #It is an FAA Regulation, you have to be Type Rated for an airplane type. #A Boeing 727 rating is different than that for a Boeing 737. #One less engine and different aircraft systems. At one time there was a Flight Engineer rating for the B-727.

Personally, I would not have a problem with the referenced flight. #And as one has said, driving has worse odds.

73

Bill, W0LPQ

[VE1IDX]

At one time it was not permitted to fly a commercial jet with two engines on a trans-oceanic flight.Now it is common place with the advances in engines and reliability.Many years ago I was on a flight from Halifax,Nova Scotia to London Heathrow to catch a connecting flight to points further beyond.As we exited the plane,and this was on the tarmac exposed to the weather not in a weather proof ramp,there was a flight service truck already accessing the third center mounted engine on the DC-10.A pool of oil or fuel was running out of the engine cowling.That engine surely was shut down during flight and the aircraft continued trans-Atlantic with two engines.Kind of made me think for a minute but then I realized that the aircraft was DESIGNED to run fine with at least one engine out.The 747 can continue flight with two engines out.Our minds make a bigger deal out of things when we don't really understand all the facts then when we are well informed.