- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:53 am to Street Hawk
Is it a good idea to put a refinery, or vise versa, next to an airport...?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:53 am to Pettifogger
quote:
She looked like a nice person and doesn't look particularly fat at all
My bad. I only get my news from the OT.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:54 am to Hangover Haven
quote:What?
Is it a good idea to put a refinery, or vise versa, next to an airport...?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:55 am to TH03
quote:
Yet you act like you know this
I mean...I don't "know" it. I've never flown a plane with two engines and then flown the same plane on one engine to be able to compare. I'm not trained to fly planes. I obviously can't say that I "know" this.
However, I've talked to pilots who have claimed this. They should probably "know" this. But maybe they're all liars. I've looked online about whether it's more difficult. Every article on the first page of google says it's not.
"A twin engine plane can fly perfectly well on one engine."
"Believe it or not, flying a jet like the ERJ on one engine isn't that different from flying it on both engines"
"Losing one engine on a twin-engine airliner isn't as serious as you might think"
So no, I don't 'know' that it is pretty similar, which is why I asked if it is more difficult. You claim that it is much more difficult. Care to give your reasoning?
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 9:57 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:55 am to ell_13
Philly is a terrible airport and that's pretty much what it looks like
It's in industrial wasteland
It's in industrial wasteland
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:01 am to Pettifogger
I just don't see the problem. First, that's a telescoping shot so the background looks larger. It's not THAT close. Second, I'm sure it's not in a spot that would ever be an issue.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:02 am to ell_13
quote:
That's like saying quantum physics is easy to understand... for a quantum physics professor.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And she is the quantum physics professor in this scenario. Landing a plane, one engine or otherwise, should be easy for her. If it's not easy, she shouldn't be flying commercial airliners.
quote:
She's to be commended. She was calm when she had to be and handled herself well throughout a difficult, high pressure situation. Is it "more difficult" to land a plane with one engine compared to one that's fully functioning? Yes, mostly because there are a few differences in the procedure on top of the added pressure of the situation.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be commended. She did a great job. It's impressive. I asked a simple question, whether it was much more difficult to land a plane on one engine versus two. That's it. And it sounds like the answer is 'no' but you guys for some reason want it to be 'yes' just because she's an ex-navy fighter pilot who happens to be a she.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:03 am to Fe_Mike
quote:Are you smart enough to understand flying on one engine and flying on one engine at 30,000 feet with a depressurized cabin due to exploding shrapnel piercing the cabin is very different?
Fe_Mike
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:04 am to celltech1981
Maybe now they will pay her more than $.60 on the dollar compared to her male counterparts.
Kidding
Kidding
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:06 am to ell_13
quote:
Is it "more difficult" to land a plane with one engine compared to one that's fully functioning? Yes, mostly because there are a few differences in the procedure on top of the added pressure of the situation.
Add on to the fact that because the engine literally blew up, the plane isn't structurally the same and it looks like part of the wing was probably damaged as well. The plane isn't going to fly like a plane with just a failed engine. Based on that, my guess would be that it took a good bit of skill to land that thing safely.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:06 am to Fe_Mike
quote:When an athlete makes an amazing play and the announcer says "he made that look easy," does that mean you aren't impressed? Are you the guy who says "He's supposed to make those plays. Who cares???" So edgy.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
quote:No. I explained why it was impressive. The procedure is different meaning it's not something any pilot is totally comfortable doing like a normal landing would be. And she's got 148 people 8 of which are injured counting on her to remain calm in an extremely stressful situation. Yes, she was trained to handle those things and her background has prepared her well, but that doesn't mean it was "easy".
whether it was much more difficult to land a plane on one engine versus two. That's it. And it sounds like the answer is 'no' but you guys for some reason want it to be 'yes' just because she's an ex-navy fighter pilot who happens to be a she.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:10 am to LSUZombie
quote:
Even to go so far as "Landing a plane with a blown engine isn't 'that' hard."
I totally agree. To discount the difficulty of what she did is fricking stupid.
Have you ever seen how small a kitchen island is and imagine trying to put a jet down on one missing an engine?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:13 am to lsupride87
quote:
Are you smart enough to understand flying on one engine and flying on one engine at 30,000 feet with a depressurized cabin due to exploding shrapnel piercing the cabin is very different?
Are you smart enough to explain to me why it's very different? Everything I've found on the subject has said that it is not very different. So explain to me why it is. Depressurization and all. I'm open to being taught something today.
Again, not saying that it isn't impressive. Flying a fully operation airplane is impressive. Landing one with half the engines and a hole in it is obviously at least somewhat more impressive. But is it so difficult that only a handful of elite pilots could do it? Just curious to get learned here.
And to add more fuel to the fire, I'd bet that >95% of airline pilots would have had the same outcome were they in that situation instead. Now there is an ignorant and completely baseless assumption y'all can get mad about.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:17 am to Fe_Mike
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/6/20 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:20 am to Fe_Mike
quote:No one is mad. Why do you people argue this way now? As soon as you look stupid, start calling people "sad" or "mad" or "triggered".
But is it so difficult that only a handful of elite pilots could do it? Just curious to get learned here.
And to add more fuel to the fire, I'd bet that >95% of airline pilots would have had the same outcome were they in that situation instead. Now there is an ignorant and completely baseless assumption y'all can get mad about.
The truth is that there's no way to know this. You hope that all pilots are this good and trained well. We can go back and look at crashes and see how many started with an engine explosion that ripped through part of the fuselage to possibly get an idea. Do you think all of them ended so well?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:23 am to whatchamacallit
I would imagine the plane would want to yaw with only having power on one side. Therefore, it may be a little more challenging. Also, when that engine blew the shrapnel could have damaged some of the wing components like brakes or flaps adding another dimension of difficulty. Even more serious it could have punctured the wing and damaged some of the control cables inside. I don't think we know if any of this happened. In conclusion, frick off if you think this was routine.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:26 am to ell_13
quote:
No one is mad. Why do you people argue this way now? As soon as you look stupid, start calling people "sad" or "mad" or "triggered".
Y'all are mad. I know that, because I'm asking a simple question and nobody here is answering it. You're all just saying I'm stupid. That's what people do when they're mad. They dodge the question, and insult the inquirer.
I have given multiple legitimate arguments for why I believe landing a twin-engine aircraft that has lost one engine is not that difficult (when compared to landing one with both engines). You all have given no legitimate arguments to prove me wrong, other than saying "well 1<2 so it's gotta be much harder".
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:29 am to Street Hawk
It's now a miracle only one person died that day.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:32 am to Fe_Mike
quote:
I have given multiple legitimate arguments for why I believe landing a twin-engine aircraft that has lost one engine is not that difficult (when compared to landing one with both engines)
I gave several reasons above. However, if it simply loss of power in one and no other damage then simple rudder work should make it relatively easy. I am not a pilot so this is just an educated guess.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News