Why nobody should ever fly on a 777

[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....

[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.

[CCIP]

That's nasty!

Yeah, that one will pretty certainly be a writeoff, therefore stays in Vegas.

[Aktungbby]

August 31, 1986. N4891F, callsign Piper 4891 Foxtrot, was a privately-operated Piper PA-28-181 Archer owned by the Kramer family(3) en route from Torrance to Big Bear City, California. The two aircraft collided in mid-air over Cerritos, California, killing all 67 aboard both aircraft and 15 people on the ground. In addition, 8 persons on the ground sustained minor injuries from the crash. I still think about this one...a lot

[CCIP]

Well, that's not a glide issue - it basically took out all vertical controls of the aircraft and was unrecoverable. No amount of gliding capability would've helped that aircraft, because there was no longer a way to control it.

Doesn't even take a collision - a similar loss of control befell the unfortunate Alaska 261, all because of a faulty worn down jackscrew:

[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.

[Betonov]

Not to mention that Air Japan 747 that lost it's rear controls surfaces after a rapid decompression in the tail cabin pressure wall cut the control lines to the tail.

[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.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Got to love how Air Canada treated the two of them after the event by demoting them both.

That was a temporary 'slap on the wrist' : In 1985 the pilots were awarded the first ever Fédération Aéronautique Internationale Diploma for Outstanding Airmanship. On the 25th anniversary of the incident in 2008, pilots Pearson and Quintal were celebrated in a parade in Gimli, and a mural was dedicated to commemorate the landing. On her retirement flight to the Mojave Desert: Flight AC7067, "the Gimli Glider" was captained by Jean-Marc Bélanger, a former head of the Air Canada Pilots Association, while captains Robert Pearson and Maurice Quintal were on board to oversee the flight from Montreal to California's Mojave Airport. Also on board were three of the six flight attendants who were on Flight 143. [wiki] <from this...to this at Mojave dismantled but not scrapped as of 2014> Still in the 2012 video:

[NeonSamurai]

Wasn't exactly temporary, Air Canada had tried to blame the entire incident on the pilots and the ground crew. The demotion was rescinded after appealing the decision, due to public pressure and the fact that the Aviation Safety Board vindicated the pilots and crew and laid the blame squarely at Air Canada's feet.

The award was because Captain Pearson pulled off a nigh impossible landing almost perfectly (something that in simulation other pilots were unable to duplicate), and the award is not connected in any way to Air Canada.

[Gargamel]

Well, they did screw up the math to start with...... Whether or not that's AC's or the pilots' fault is neither here nor there. They were faced with an impossible no win situation and pulled off an amazing feat.