- 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
re: Pilot of Southwest flight with blown engine was one of Navy's first female fighter pilots
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:32 am to Fe_Mike
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:32 am to Fe_Mike
quote:FFS, I've answered it twice now.
I know that, because I'm asking a simple question and nobody here is answering it.
quote:I've explained why.
You're all just saying I'm stupid.
quote:I'm sorry you don't like the answer that it's more difficult and "hard" to land a plane with a hole in it and only 1 engine.
They dodge the question, and insult the inquirer.
quote:Your links referenced "flying" one and even has this 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).
quote:This didn't happen, did it. The blade tore up the wing and sent shrapnel into the fuselage.
For example, if one of the fan blades at the front of the aircraft detaches, the engine casing should stop it leaving the engine.
quote:
You all have given no legitimate arguments to prove me wrong,
1
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:32 am to Janky
quote:
I would imagine the plane would want to yaw with only having power on one side.
This is only very slightly true on a twin engine. On a quad, if you've got two out on one side, it would be more of a factor.
quote:
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.
If this happened then yes, obviously much more difficult. That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking if it's much more difficult to land a plane on one engine vs two (the answer is no).
quote:
In conclusion, frick off if you think this was routine.
Never did I say this was routine. It is quite obviously not.
Again, with the frick off comments. Literally the only thing I did was ask if it's that much harder to land a plane that has lost one engine. And people got all defensive like I kicked their dog or insulted their mother.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:35 am to Fe_Mike
quote:
like I kicked their dog
Leave my dog out of this.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:36 am to Fe_Mike
quote:And you got mad when the answer by some was "yes".
.iterally the only thing I did was ask if it's that much harder to land a plane that has lost one engine.
BTW. I read your links. They all have to do with a failed engine. One that just shuts off. This was completely different.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:47 am to Alt26
quote:
Serious question? What shrapnel is she hitting at 30,000 feet? Is there just garbage floating around in the sky?
It's a good thing you weren't the pilot. Except that I'm guessing you're a man. In which case, you were born with the skills, knowledge and balls to immediately be better qualified than she was at landing the plane, right?
And to answer your question, I think it was a beer bottle somebody threw out of the window of the plane in front of this one. Because she was tailgating.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:47 am to ell_13
quote:
FFS, I've answered it twice now.
You haven't answered it twice. You've talked about the added pressure of the situation and it being non-routine, but you haven't said from a purely technical perspective why it is more difficult.
Again, in my scenario, the whole thing is a simulation and no lives are at stake. Do any of the physical things that happened make it much more difficult to land the plane?
Since you like sports analogies, let's compare this to kicking in football. Pilots study and practice flying with engine failure. Now, you've got an NFL kicker making 40 yard field goals in practice. Nobody is impressed, he should be able to do that. Make that 40 yarder with the game on the line in the super bowl, and everyone loses their mind he's the best kicker ever. Yes, pressure in a situation makes everything seem more difficult and some people can't cope with it. But when you take away all of the external factors that should -technically- impact the task...was it really all that more difficult? It just seems more difficult.
I'm being very sociopathic about all of this. It sucks that the woman died and it's awesome that the pilot was clutch in landing the plane while sucking oxygen through a mask (do pilots get better masks than passengers? I bet they do...)
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:53 am to Fe_Mike
quote:Ooooohhhh. I didn't know you would move the goalpost, man. You should have let me know.
You've talked about the added pressure of the situation and it being non-routine, but you haven't said from a purely technical perspective why it is more difficult.
quote:See above.
the whole thing is a simulation and no lives are at stake.
quote:You mean the blown engine with possible damage to the wing and a hole in the plane? Nah, fam. Easy peasy.
Do any of the physical things that happened make it much more difficult to land the plane?
quote:Yes. Changing the situation completely completely changes the situation. Nothing gets past you.
when you take away all of the external factors that should -technically- impact the task...was it really all that more difficult?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:54 am to Fe_Mike
One question. If a male pilot had been flying this plane, would you be trying so hard to make it look like it was "no big deal?"
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 10:55 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:55 am to Fe_Mike
I knew the average intelligence of the OT was kinda low. What I didn't realize is some people who are borderline retarded post here.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:56 am to ell_13
quote:
And you got mad when the answer by some was "yes".
I did not get mad, I just asked why the answer was 'yes'. Nobody has told me from a technical perspective why it is more difficult to land a plane with one engine. The fact that people were on the plane is not technical.
quote:
BTW. I read your links. They all have to do with a failed engine. One that just shuts off. This was completely different.
Engine failure is engine failure. The engine is no longer in service. Doesn't matter if it blew up, fell off, or just died. If evidence comes out that the flats/slats/spoilers/power etc were compromised in the explosion then yes, this is obviously an entirely different conversation. So far I haven't heard of that. It seems like all systems were still functional (minus the engine and that dang window).
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:59 am to Fe_Mike
quote:The fact that shrapnel blew off and tore a hole in the plane doesnt already make it different that "just a failed engine"?
Engine failure is engine failure. The engine is no longer in service. Doesn't matter if it blew up, fell off, or just died. If evidence comes out that the flats/slats/spoilers/power etc were compromised in the explosion then yes, this is obviously an entirely different conversation
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:59 am to Fe_Mike
quote:That's not what this was. It didn't just shut off. It blew up, possibly affecting the wings functions (certainly the aerodynamics), and put on a hole in the plane. It's not the same.
Engine failure is engine failure.
quote:Wow. You really think an engine cutting off will have the same effect as an engine falling out of the sky? That's where we are at right now? Sheesh.
Doesn't matter if it blew up, fell off, or just died.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:00 am to Fe_Mike
quote:
when you take away all of the external factors that should -technically- impact the task...was it really all that more difficult?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:00 am to lsupride87
For someone who admits he "doesn't know" about this stuff and was "just asking a question," he certainly seems to have some biases and is arguing hard af for a specific answer to his own question.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:03 am to Fe_Mike
quote:
Engine failure is engine failure. The engine is no longer in service. Doesn't matter if it blew up, fell off, or just died
bullshite. I don't know anything about flying a plane, except that I don't want to. But most any moron knows that an engine blowing up and a window breaking changes aerodynamics. And planes are dependent on aerodynamics, among many other things.
The operable words above are "most any"
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 11:05 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:03 am to ell_13
quote:
You mean the blown engine with possible damage to the wing and a hole in the plane? Nah, fam. Easy peasy.
The fact that you think a window size hole in the side of the fuselage is going to affect the performance of the plane makes me question why I'm even talking to you. Cabin pressure (or lack thereof) is there entirely to keep what's inside the plane safe. Has nothing to do with the flight performance of the plane. The pressure will equalize quickly if a hole forms and the plane from a mechanically standpoint is right as rain again.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:05 am to crtodd
quote:
One question. If a male pilot had been flying this plane, would you be trying so hard to make it look like it was "no big deal?"
Again, I'm not trying to make it look like anything. I just asked if this plane was much more difficult to land than I am picking up on. I don't think it was. Has nothing to do with who was flying.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:06 am to lsupride87
quote:
The fact that shrapnel blew off and tore a hole in the plane doesnt already make it different that "just a failed engine"?
From a purely operational standpoint, no it does not. Were any vital functions damaged in the explosion other than the engine, obviously?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:11 am to Fe_Mike
quote:
The fact that you think a window size hole in the side of the fuselage is going to affect the performance of the plane makes me question why I'm even talking to you.
quote:At 10k ft that's fine, but at 30k ft, it could cause an explosion. Good lord.
Has nothing to do with the flight performance of the plane. The pressure will equalize quickly if a hole forms and the plane from a mechanically standpoint is right as rain again.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:11 am to crtodd
quote:
bullshite. I don't know anything about flying a plane, except that I don't want to. But most any moron knows that an engine blowing up and a window breaking changes aerodynamics.
Well you clearly know far less about how planes fly than I do.
A blown up engine is not going to 'change aerodynamics' in such a way that'll it will affect the performance of the plane in and of itself. Now if it blows up and the wing falls off that's obviously a different story, but that's not what we're talking about. Look at the weather and wind that airplanes fly through on a regular basis. You think a slightly warped engine manifold is going to impact flight more than wind gusts seen on a regular basis?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News