A Ukrainian Boeing-737 crashes killing all onboard

[scooterscot]

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

[Unix]

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

[Zigenare]

Fook off yer thick twat. We're talking generally here ...

Aye and in "General" at that so fook off yourself you dumb twunt.

[vwdan]

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.

[vwdan]

Here go educate yourself . Lot's to digest


List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 - Wikipedia

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"

[WTFH]

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.

[vwdan]

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"

[WTFH]

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.

[vwdan]

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.

[Whorty]

"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