Posted on 05/25/2007 10:49:58 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Fox news Alert:
Emergency vehicles on tarmac waiting for 747 with an engine out at Dulles Int'l airport. Developing...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
One good thing I love about FR. If you are wrong, you get and education with sources, links, and new nicknames...QUICK!
No biggie, just gives the media something to yap about for a few hours.
FWIW, you don’t need an engine to land a plane, you need the engines to keep it in the air.
A single lost engine on a 747 is nothing (unless it is on fire). They have 4 and you only need one to keep it in the air. The other three are only needed to get it off the ground.
That was what I recalled, but could not remember the destination. Seems flying with 3 is in the manuals as permissible.
Just hope one of em’ doesn’t fall off after take-off..
Er OK. More sluggishly than usual.
Disregarding for a second the lives of the passengers and crew, have they considered the environmental impact of an airliner crash?
Fox News just reported that the plane just landed safely (United AL).
Airline pilot comes on the intercom. “I’m sorry folks, but we have lost an engine. Nothing to worry about, but we’ll be 45 minutes late.”
A few minutes later, he comes on again. “Folks, we just lost a second engine, but we can still fly safely on two. We will be 2 hours late, though.
After that, the pilot comes on again. “We lost a third engine, so we will be 3 hours late.”
One passenger looks over and says, “I hope we don’t lose another engine, we’ll be in the air for days.”
If these folks had any brains they wouldn't be working for MSNBC.
British Airways lost an engine over China on a 747 enroute Hong Kong to London, kept going to LHR. No sweat, one hour, late free drinks for all.
Nope, Laurie David is the Exec. Producer for MSNBC.
Not really - it can take off with one out of four engines working...
Not that I care to be on it...
“How far can we go on one engine?”
“All the way to the scene of the crash, I am sure. And we will beat the emergency vehicles by twenty minutes, at my guess...”
It landed safely, BTW. Duh.
1 engine out, 1 hour late.
2 engines out, 2 hours late.
3 engines out, 3 hours late.
4 engines out, you’re up there all night.
When I was with the MCAS Yuma. We always had the dreaded C-130 one engine out call. There was always the hurry up & wait factor for nothing to happen! this kind of thing happens with multi. engined aircraft!
No longer breaking news.
Please move my thread out of Breaking and change title to:
"747 with engine failure safely returns to Dulles".
Thanks!
DCB
Big deal. I’ve landed twice on 3 out of 4 engines and once with no gear down. That one was a little scary (I was a child), flames everywhere.
I walked (and ran) away from all 3 so I guess it was OK.
Another favorite is descending through the fog and all of a sudden, whoosh! NO FOG, but TREES!! Close trees! Like reach out and touch them trees.
“Plane is just loitering burning excess fuel and going to dump some and come in for a routine landing.”
So which is worse for the environment, dumping fuel or burning it off? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.