Airlines

Post Reply New Topic

I never flown & I have no desire too after listening to this song

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieFk6yq74w[/youtube]

Logic dictates nothing of the kind.

Four engines vs. two engines services to increase the likelihood of an engine fault by a factor of 2, without giving any assurance of greater reliability. If

Consider all of the incidents in which jet engine aircraft have lost all engines (incidents involving more than two engines in italics):

21AUG1963 - SU Tu-124 -- fuel starvation
02MAY1970 - LM980 - DC9 -- fuel starvation
06SEP1971 - Paninternational 112 - BAC-111 -- system contamination
07DEC1976 - SU929 - Yak40 -- fuel starvation
04APR1977 - SO242 - DC9 -- water ingestion
28DEC1978 - US173 - DC8 -- fuel starvation
24JUN1982 - BA009 - 747 -- volcanic ash ingestion
05MAY1983 - EA855 - L10 -- loss of oil pressure
23JUL1983 - AC143 - 767 -- fuel starvation
19AUG1983 - UA310 - 767 -- fuel contamination
31MAR1986 - UA - 767 -- crew error
30JUN1987 - DL810 - 767 -- crew error
24MAY1988 - TA110 - 737 -- water ingestion
08JAN1989 - BD092 - 737 -- crew error
03SEP1989 - VA254 - 737 -- fuel starvation
15DEC1989 - KL867 - 747 -- volcanic ash ingestion
25JAN1990 - AV052 - 707 -- fuel starvation
27DEC1991 - SK751 - MD80 -- ice ingestion
15NOV1993 - IA440 - A300 -- fuel starvation
18SEP1994 - Oriental airlines -- BAC111 -- fuel starvation
26SEP1994 - Cheremshanka 87468 - Yak40 -- fuel starvation
23NOV1996 - ET961 -- 767 -- fuel starvation
12JUL2000 - HF3378 -- A310 -- fuel starvation
24AUG2001 - AT236 -- A330 -- fuel starvation
16JAN2002 - GA421 -- 737 -- water ingestion
15JAN2009 - US1549 -- A320 -- bird ingestion

So, there have been 26 situations where jet aircraft have lost all engines. Of these, 13 were due to fuel starvation. It doesn't matter whether you have one engine or 8, if you are out of fuel, none of your engines turn. Of the 13 that remain, another 7 were due to ingestion issues--two ash, four water/ice, and one birds. If your engines are sucking in excessive amounts of volcanic ash or water, then they are all sucking it in. The bird ingestion is more unusual, because it is reasonable to suppose that they would more often be limited, but if a flock of birds are on both sides of your aircraft, then chances are that all of your engines will be ingesting them, not just one. Of the remaining 6 incidents, two are due to contamination--and if one of your systems is contaminated, it's going to contaminate all your engines, whether you have two or eight. One was due to maintenance errors on all of the aircrafts engines (three of them). Then we have two incidents in which the crew shut off all engines in error--and again, if you have reached for two fuel cutoff switches, you can just as easily reach for four.

That leaves only one incidence in the 60 plus year history of jet aviation in which an aircraft has lost all its engines in circumstances in which it was possible that a greater number of engines would have prevented that.

08JAN1989 - BD092 - 737 -- crew error

In this case, a fan blade broke off from the port engine. The crew shut down the starboard engine in error, and this error was not immediately apparent because the port engine was still functioning until it flamed out on approach, at which point there was insufficient time to restart the starboard engine.

This is the only incident that conforms to your theory that a greater number of engines provides greater safety--and the incident would have been avoided had the crew paid attention to the vibration indicators in the cockpit.

On the other hand, in 1998, the NTSB had recorded 150 incidents of uncontained engine failures of jet engines (and that's only GE and P&W engines--the review did not include RR, Trents, and other foreign manufactured engines). Incidents of this type are invariably isolated to a single engine, whether due to maintenance error, ingestion or fatigue--and the likelihood of these failures taking place is directly related to the number of engines on the aircraft.

Same here.

I think it's unfair that people expect their flight attendants to be young, slim and pretty. You don't expect people who work at Walmart to be that way - why expect it from flight attendants? There are only two jobs I can think of where being attractive should be mandatory, and that is porn and stripping - since the whole point of those is to ogle attractive people. But as someone else in this thread has already pointed out, being a flight attendant isn't about being attractive - it's about making sure the passengers are safe and taken care of.