Timeline for Why not just drop an engine on fire?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://aviation.stackexchange.com/ with https://aviation.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 19, 2016 at 0:29 | comment | added | TomMcW |
Why don't planes have anti-missile systems? They do. Why don't planes have airbags? They do. Why don't airplanes have parachutes? They do. So I wouldn't say "impossible." There are quite a few safety systems on aircraft that rarely get used.
|
|
| Dec 17, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | К. Келлогг Смиф | @SnakeDoc's answer is statistically and realistically correct. Ever since the advent of "Sputnik" all kinds of unusual objects have fallen out of the sky above our heads; they haven't hurt Earth's human population, nor permanently scarred Mother Earths' surface, either. But now Airbus has started planning, and building, a triple-decker passenger jet that can carry more than 700 passengers. With the "Titanic" in mind, I believe that provision for life-saving engine-jettisoning in emergencies will absolutely be an aircraft design requirement in near-future ICAO and FAA regulations. | |
| Dec 17, 2016 at 10:30 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | Ahh - a voice of reason! +1. | |
| Dec 17, 2016 at 0:32 | comment | added | 200_success | With a release mechanism, the risk of accidentally dropping an engine is probably similar to the risk of a fire in the engine. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 20:55 | comment | added | voretaq7 | @abelenky We like to put airports near population centers (KJFK, KLGA, KLAX, KORD, KATL…), and coastal waters can have quite a few ships (pleasure, merchant, and military) sailing around in them: Even if the detachment process could be made simple and lightweight (explosive bolts and the existing mechanisms that clamp fuel/oil/hudraulic/pneumatic lines to a severed pylon) along the lines of military aircraft with drop-tanks for fuel it would never pass the safety-of-people-on-the-ground test for civil aircraft. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 17:30 | comment | added | SnakeDoc | @abelenky That's going to depend where you're flying. i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/18/… In the USA midwest, you're probably right, but most places over the east coast... not so much. I still think dropping hunks of metal from airplanes at random is more of a problem for the general population than if all passengers died. Sounds blunt, but the likelihood of the airplane falling from the sky is so small, that it makes dropping engines more of a risk than simply extinguishing the fire or landing with it on fire. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 17:20 | comment | added | abelenky | @SnakeDoc: The world is a lot more empty than you may realize. 70% of the earth is water, and upwards of 95% of land has no one on it at all. Without even trying, you could drop an engine at any time, and probably not do any damage at all. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 17:10 | comment | added | SnakeDoc | I think the real reason is dropping, effectively, a bomb from an airplane over even a slightly dense population is likely to cause as much damage and loss of life as-if everyone on the plane died in a crash. Given it's far more unlikely for an engine fire to crash an airplane, that's not really an acceptable risk. | |
| Dec 16, 2016 at 16:57 | history | answered | abelenky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
