[Niteflyr]

Well they are, in most large aircraft and in fighter jets. They just have a "backup" engine. Usually two, one that runs on jet fuel, the APU, and can provide electricity and hydraulic power. The other runs off of the airflow around the aircraft. Of course if you run out of fuel, the APU won't run either..unless it has it's own independent supply, which would by necessity be more limited. Probably do both. The RAT, the air turbine, loses power as the aircraft slows.

I was making a general statement...and referring to Part 135 aircraft only (not military). Is there a scenerio under which engines could fail and primary flight controls could be effected or diminished...maybe (and you can give me a specific aircraft-scenerio under which that could happen). My point was that the general public already has the notion that "when the engines quit planes fall out of the sky" which is a notion I continually try to dispel. Designers aren't idiots. They know that with a catastrophic engine failure situation provisions have to be made to maintain primary flight control. In some military jets it is often that if you have no engine(s) that there is no way to "dead stick" one in anyway so backups would not be as useful. Anyway you are not being helpful if you are trying to spread the idea that when "the fires die they fall out of the sky"...

35 year FAA A & P mechanic-pilot

[El Gato]

Anyway you are not being helpful if you are trying to spread the idea that when "the fires die they fall out of the sky"...

Go back and read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not spreading that notion. Just stating that since that there are some aircraft that would be uncontrollable with no engine power, there are backups that can take over from the engines. usually two of them. The RAT and the APU.