Why nobody should ever fly on a 777

[NeonSamurai]

I wonder if Wolf Blitzer had anything to do with the report. He was always infamous for being CNN's know-it-all on just about everything, and getting absolutely nothing right (seriously just about every other word that came out of his mouth was utter nonsense). Never understood how that idiot managed to get promoted on top of it.

Either way, I'm not at all surprised that CNN goofed again, its like their main talent or something

[CCIP]

By the way, that report was from late March 2014 so it's not a recent goof!

[Gargamel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Or better yet: (NSFW! or kids! or most people actually, it's Kevin Smith just rambling) http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/
Story starts at about the 13:00 mark

[Betonov]

Isn't 777 the one with the huge for it's size engines. That might explain since they'd present a very large drag on it.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Or better yet: (NSFW! or kids! or most people actually, it's Kevin Smith just rambling) http://www.smodcast.com/episodes/true-tales-of-canadian-heroism/
Story starts at about the 13:00 mark

My parents knew the captain of that flight, he was one of our neighbors when I was a little kid.

[Jimbuna]

Nothing much to do with the topic but the last time I flew across the pond it was in a 777 and I often wondered if I'd be safer in a 747, aplane with four engines as opposed to two.

[Catfish]

Well, the headline read not able to "... maintain altitude, without fuel"

The only safe thing is, no plane will be lost in the skies. I think this is rather comforting

[Aktungbby]

^On that: at approx. 8 lbs a gallon, no fuel would lighten the aircraft...increasing it's glide-distance somewhat even for a harassed stressed-out pilot. Plus pilots tend to play and train for the 'what ifs' game (except at Malaysian Airlines) and after Sullenberger's dramatic lesson on the Hudson River, they're all thinking about it and how to do it properly in their respective aircraft types. At worst, I always knew where the closest freeway was....

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Well, the headline read not able to "... maintain altitude, without fuel"

The only safe thing is, no plane will be lost in the skies. I think this is rather comforting

With aircraft, take-offs are voluntary; landings are mandatory.

[CCIP]

Haha, for the last time, there's no issue with the 777. The engines do create drag, but it's nothing extraordinary and compensated for by the wings. It doesn't make a whole lot of relative difference whether they're spinning or not - the L/D ratio remains fairly consistent. The 777 is no worse at gliding than it should be, and better than older-generation planes like the 747. It's probably insignificantly worse than an A330, but that's only because the latter has a more advanced wing design.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Nothing much to do with the topic but the last time I flew across the pond it was in a 777 and I often wondered if I'd be safer in a 747, aplane with four engines as opposed to two.

It's not any less safe. That used to be the thinking, but once it was realized how extremely unlikely even a single modern jet engine is to fail, it became apparent that 4 engines is actually a disadvantage in every other way. Today, engines have an IFSD (inflight shutdown) probability of something like once every 400,000 hours. That's for one engine! The probability of two engines shutting down at the same time for unrelated reasons is one in hundreds of billions of hours - and if something severe enough happens that would actually knock out both engines on a modern airliner, it would likely knock out 4 just the same (e.g. if you fly into a volcano ash cloud, 4 engines aren't really going to help you).

ETOPS (Extended Twin-engine Ops) regulations that allow twinjets to operate far from land came in 30 years ago. To this day, ETOPS has not failed for any mechanical reasons, as far as I know. There are now planes that have up to 370min ETOPS certification (i.e. they've proven capable of flying on just one engine for over 6 hours without compromising safety). There has never been a dual IFSD in the entire history of ETOPS (except for reasons external to the engines). That's pretty remarkable and I'd say as good of an evidence as you need to know that twin-engine planes are really darn good.

[Torplexed]

I see a British Airways 777 just caught on fire in Las Vegas preparing to depart to London/Gatwick. Happily no deaths, just two minor injuries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...as-latest.html




What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

[AngusJS]

What awful engineering. The A380 can not only easily maintain altitude with no fuel, it can also take off with no fuel as well!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

What awful engineering. The A380 can not only easily maintain altitude with no fuel, it can also take off with no fuel as well!

A380 it is then

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

My parents knew the captain of that flight, he was one of our neighbors when I was a little kid.

That's epically cool. You might want to take a listen to that podcast then. As goofy and weird as Smith and Mosier are, they do paint the pilots in a good light, albeit a weird one.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

That's epically cool. You might want to take a listen to that podcast then. As goofy and weird as Smith and Mosier are, they do paint the pilots in a good light, albeit a weird one.

I've seen him on the tv series Mayday. According to my parents he was a really nice guy. I should also have said that they knew him at about the same time this event happened. Got to love how Air Canada treated the two of them after the event by demoting them both.