Timeline for What would have happened if the jet engine on my aircraft had ingested caulk from the pavement?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2017 at 6:41 | comment | added | Flambino | @RussellBorogove Sadly, yes. This was an international flight, but in Europe, so just under 2 hours flight time, and short flights don't get free coffee. Of course, it was a lower-cost airline too (thankfully a pretty nice one; not rock-bottom), but some of the "traditional" airlines have started nickel-and-diming passengers for stuff like that too. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 14:25 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | It's been a couple of years since I've flown, but, uh, are passengers paying for coffee now? | |
| Jan 28, 2016 at 23:17 | comment | added | Flambino | @reirab Ah, well, there goes my hope for more polite fowl :) | |
| Jan 28, 2016 at 23:15 | comment | added | reirab | @Flambino Both names refer to the same animal. Granted, 'Canadian Geese' is more colloquial, but it's also more grammatically correct, so I prefer it. :) | |
| Jan 28, 2016 at 22:22 | vote | accept | Flambino | ||
| Jan 28, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | Flambino | @reirab "Canada geese" is the term, I believe. They're not necessarily canucks ;) Canadian geese would be too polite to cause a double engine failure, I'm sure | |
| Jan 28, 2016 at 21:28 | comment | added | reirab | Also, for whatever it's worth, many bird ingestions don't actually destroy the engine, like the ones in the given examples did. Those were more exceptions than the rule (the double engine failure in the U.S. Airways flight was extremely rare... and is a good reason to remember not to fly through a flock of Canadian Geese.) Bird strikes on engines are actually pretty common. I've had a flight where we had to change planes right before boarding was about to start because the pilots found that one of the engines had taken a bird strike on the previous flight when they were doing the walk-around. | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 21:29 | comment | added | Flambino | Yeah, I did think that stones or sand in the caulk would be worse than the strip itself - but still pose no danger to anything except the engine. Really, a lot of thoughts went through my mind including everything I know about jet engines, compressor stages, and the effects of debris going into them. Again, layman's knowledge of the subject, but it all made me worry less, not more. The engineer in me trusts those machines. But yeah, if anyone knows someone working Qatar 787s, know that I like a bit of sugar with my coffee, but I'll settle for black ;) | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 21:08 | history | edited | Jae Carr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2016 at 21:06 | comment | added | Jae Carr | @Flambino To be fair, the strip may have had stones or wood stuck to it, and small stones can cause all sorts of problems with engines too so... But yeah, I'd probably go collecting on a cup from the 787 as well, work it for as much free coffee as you can ;) | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 20:29 | comment | added | Flambino | Thanks for the answer. I do know what a birdstrike can do, but yes: We were on the ground, idling. And my bet would be that that strip of caulk would be less dangerous than a bird, even at take-off power. Nice to know I was right to not worry about catastrophic engine failure and such. By the way, the jet by the gate next to mine was a Dreamliner with engines that looked like they could suck a house of its foundation. I don't know if it would/did pass over the same spot of pavement after pushback, but... well. I'd like to think that airline owes me a coffee too :) | |
| Jan 27, 2016 at 20:08 | history | answered | Jae Carr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |