Skip to main content
31 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 8, 2016 at 1:04 history edited SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0
Removed useless part
Mar 27, 2016 at 15:35 vote accept SMS von der Tann
Mar 27, 2016 at 15:27 history edited SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0
added 82 characters in body
Feb 15, 2016 at 0:56 history edited SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0
added 54 characters in body
Feb 9, 2016 at 19:18 comment added jean @reirab To settle it Fred Larson finding is probably the right one. Cannot find old (30 years) news archives about that incident and unfortunately I don't have access to old tv news.
Feb 9, 2016 at 18:39 comment added Rob Vermeulen When an engine seperates more or less cleanly (without damaging too much of the wing structure and control surfaces) I can imagine it means less trouble because there's less drag than when an inoperative engine stays in place. Less assymetry, easier handling of what's left of the aircraft. A good thing - from the perspective of crew and passengers of course, not for folks and things on the ground.
Feb 9, 2016 at 1:50 history edited SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0
added 56 characters in body
Feb 7, 2016 at 2:14 comment added Martin Argerami @reirab: because in a 727 the engines are really close to the fuselage. As for the behaviour of the engine sensors during an engine failure, I cannot comment on that, but I can easily image that there are failures where everything goes to zero immediately.
Feb 7, 2016 at 1:08 comment added reirab @kasperd It works for me, but it's a PDF. Here's a non-PDF source.
Feb 7, 2016 at 1:08 comment added reirab @MartinArgerami I took his comment as meaning they hadn't noticed one of the engines wasn't working (which seems really hard to believe.) At any rate, I'd assume that a jet would report things like oil level and various temperatures, which you wouldn't expect to suddenly all report no information at all in the case of a flame-out. It would also take a bit for the engine to spin down, so N1/N2 shouldn't immediately drop to zero. Also, why do you say large rudder input wouldn't be required to counter the yawing moment from asymmetric thrust?
Feb 6, 2016 at 13:14 comment added kasperd @RonBeyer That link is not working for me.
Feb 6, 2016 at 10:16 comment added Martin Argerami @reirab: I don't think the pilot would have needed "large rudder inputs". And as for "the engine instruments all reporting zero", wouldn't that be expected from a flamed-out engine?
Feb 5, 2016 at 19:35 comment added reirab @jean Hmm... The pilot not noticing an engine completely missing seems rather hard to believe. It seems like the engine instruments all reporting zero and the need to apply large rudder inputs in order to fly straight would be pretty noticeable.
Feb 5, 2016 at 18:26 comment added jean @FredLarson Not found any other similar reference but also don't found another two incidents (Aerolineas Argentinas 707 belly landing and a F14 ditched to make a hard landing with falty landing gear). Living next to a busy airport makes you to witness lots of incidents. Maybe later I can search local newspapers archives =)
Feb 5, 2016 at 18:16 comment added jean @FredLarson Maybe, as I said cannot remember the details but ill search for similar matches shame there's no youtube at the time =) wish I can find the original news on tv
Feb 5, 2016 at 18:07 comment added Fred Larson @jean: Was it this one? aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870115-2
Feb 5, 2016 at 16:45 comment added jean Too lazy to search now but I witnessed it as a kid. Short after takeoff from Recife - Brazil a boeing (cannot remeber details by I guess it was a 727) lost one engine and it crashed a few yards from a house in a rural area. Two and half hours later the airliner itself landed safely on São Paulo. To add bizarre a report asked the pilot about the incident and he said the crew not even noticed losting an engine before landing.
Feb 5, 2016 at 15:54 answer added fooot timeline score: 15
Feb 5, 2016 at 15:47 comment added Ron Beyer @Gusdor The closest think to a "requirement" in the US that I can find is 14 CFR 25.571 Which outlines the requirement for damage tolerance, one part of which is the engine mounting structure.
Feb 5, 2016 at 14:36 history edited SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Feb 5, 2016 at 14:17 comment added Ron Beyer @Gusdor Its not a requirement in that its mandated by a regulatory body, its a design feature.
Feb 5, 2016 at 13:49 comment added Gusdor Where can I read about the requirement for shedding engines? Isn't turning it off much safer than ejecting significant debris?
Feb 5, 2016 at 13:33 comment added DarioP Not only in reality but even in movies: see Donnie Darko.
Feb 5, 2016 at 13:05 history tweeted twitter.com/StackAviation/status/695594046480322560
Feb 5, 2016 at 12:58 history edited J W CC BY-SA 3.0
Added tag, clari
Feb 5, 2016 at 12:27 comment added Tim When I was flying there was a magazine with a feature about close calls - I can't remember if it was Flying or AOPA Pilot...but there was a story about a crew in Alaska flying at night that had their engine catastrophically fail and, as the pilot told ATC (who thought this was an engine failure), "the engine departed the airframe." It may have been a prop driven aircraft, but the article was fascinating nonetheless...
Feb 5, 2016 at 10:54 answer added aeroalias timeline score: 31
Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 answer added DeltaLima timeline score: 22
Feb 5, 2016 at 7:20 answer added Peter Kämpf timeline score: 21
Feb 5, 2016 at 3:15 comment added Ron Beyer American Airlines flight 191 , and Investigation video had that happen. There are quite a few examples of engine separation, both fatal and nonfatal if you search on Google.
Feb 5, 2016 at 2:52 history asked SMS von der Tann CC BY-SA 3.0