• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

A Ukrainian Boeing-737 crashes killing all onboard

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    Sure, we're barely even discussing the flight at this point. But in relation to "engine failures", WTFH's point was fundamentally wrong.
    Deep breath. And out. Calm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by vwdan View Post
      What point are you trying to make - we all know the MAX was a disaster, that's why they're all grounded. But outside of that, Boeings safety record is excellent - and in particular the 737NG has a great record and reputation.

      For the purposes of the discussion, the MAX is immaterial

      And it was two MAX crashes which I assume you were trying to reference.

      Here go educate yourself . Lot's to digest


      List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 - Wikipedia

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by sasguru View Post
        Fook off yer thick twat. We're talking generally here ...
        Aye and in "General" at that so fook off yourself you dumb twunt.
        Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
          Deep breath. And out. Calm.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          I'm sorry, what? You started the thread with your unusual brand of silliness - if you don't like being called on it, or responded to then maybe the Internet isn't for you.

          Not quite sure where you get the idea that I'm not "calm" from.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Unix View Post
            I'm sure you're aware that a list in isolation means absolutely zilch. I mean, the top of the page should give you a clue:

            "The 737 series is the best-selling commercial jetliner in history"

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by vwdan View Post
              Sure, we're barely even discussing the flight at this point. But in relation to "engine failures", WTFH's point was fundamentally wrong.
              Are you saying that a twin engined plane having an undetected engine failure before V1 will still always be able to take off safely? Because fundamentally, I don't believe that to be 100% the case.
              And accidents tend to be what happens when things fall outside the expected or prepared for cases.
              …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                Are you saying that a twin engined plane having an undetected engine failure before V1 will still always be able to take off safely? Because fundamentally, I don't believe that to be 100% the case.
                And accidents tend to be what happens when things fall outside the expected or prepared for cases.
                All twin commercial airliners will have had to demonstrate that they can handle losing an engine at any stage of flight after V1 (Well, Western ones anyway...).

                I completely take your second point (and you'll note that at no point in this thread have I speculated about this flight). And, of course, engine failures can be nasty events which can damage other things and no matter the training, sometimes people don't react properly in the moment.

                But, in principle, yes - the idea is that an engine failure at or beyond V1 should not pose a major issue. Let me see if I can find the exact regs.

                Edit: I've found the test for EASA, but I'm not sure how to find the actual regulation it refers to:

                https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...ed-version.pdf

                Search for "Control Following Engine Failure"
                Last edited by vwdan; 8 January 2020, 12:50.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by vwdan View Post
                  All twin commercial airliners will have had to demonstrate that they can handle losing an engine at any stage of flight after V1 (Well, Western ones anyway...).

                  I completely take your second point (and you'll note that at no point in this thread have I speculated about this flight). And, of course, engine failures can be nasty events which can damage other things and no matter the training, sometimes people don't react properly in the moment.

                  But, in principle, yes - the idea is that an engine failure at or beyond V1 should not pose a major issue. Let me see if I can find the exact regs.

                  Edit: I've found the test for EASA, but I'm not sure how to find the actual regulation it refers to:

                  https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...ed-version.pdf

                  Search for "Control Following Engine Failure"

                  Yes, I agree, an engine failure at or beyond V1 should not pose a major issue, but if it occurred before V1 and was either undetected or ignored, then it's possible that take-off could be attempted, even if the plane did not have power to get out of the initial climb.
                  …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                    Yes, I agree, an engine failure at or beyond V1 should not pose a major issue, but if it occurred before V1 and was either undetected or ignored, then it's possible that take-off could be attempted, even if the plane did not have power to get out of the initial climb.
                    Doesn't matter, though - because if it happens before you either don't make it to V1/Vr or if you do then you've reached the relevant speeds. The only exception is if you run out of runway due to your take off run being longer, but we know that didn't happen here.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by wattaj View Post
                      "Engine failure" yes; catastrophic "engine failure" no.

                      Let's wait for the details to emerge before rushing to judgement.
                      FFS. This is CUK General. We don't need 'facts' and 'details' to 'know' what went wrong.

                      You're on the wrong forum fella
                      I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X