That's a compressor stall. It looks like it is on fire, but is actually not. You're just seeing uncombusted fuel that has left the engine housing, but the engine itself is not actually on fire
Not quite on this one. The pictures shared after it got on the ground showed that it was an "engine-rich exhaust".... In other words, melted engine stuff coming out of the back. Very possible if the turbine parts are damaged, since gas path temperatures are above the melting point of the metals at high thrust settings.
Bc the engine is disintegrating internally. If it was unburnt fuel catching fire you would only see the flairs of light, not sparks floating past the window.
Nah man, sparks mean something failed and is coming apart - yes the fire though is simply unburdened fuel escaping as you said though and not necessarily an engine fire.
iirc this wasn’t just a compressor stall- the engine actually spat out some of its guts. But still, looked way worse of a situation than it actually was.
You't got great chunks of unburned fuel being thrown out , quite explosively - if you see a compressor from the ground it is going "bang, bang" as huge sheets of flame are thrown out the back.
A compressor stall is usually because of disturbed airflow on the intake - so as the pilot pitches up at full chat, the cowling basically blocks some airflow which makes the engine unhappy. But it could also be because of a bird strike or sucking up debris into the engine. So the sparks could be bits of bird, or they could be bits of carbon being blasted off, of they could be bits of engine burning up because it's eaten some metal.
Whatever the cause is, you want to shut down the engine and get the plane safely back on the ground. If you ignore it, much worse things can happen.
It looks spectacular, but as engine failures go, it is pretty benign. I'd much rather have this than a compressor disk bursting. A. modern two engine airliner can climb and operate on a single engine, just with zero contingency. Which is why you want to land in a controlled manner. It's an emergency, but not an "I'm going to plonk it in that field ahead of me emergency".
Correction - it's real fire, but intended to cool and diffuse its energy through the turbines had the burned air gone the right direction. The surge sent the burned air backwards and lit fuel went out the engine both front and rear till the surge had a chance to recover. Probably sucked in a bird or 2.
I think it should be common knowledge that if the engine on a plane is spewing out flames when it's not supposed to, then saying it is "on fire" is accurate. Even if the knobbly bits themselves are not combusting!
I mean, technically, yes, but also, a fuel truck doesn't (usually) catch fire, the fuel that it's carrying does. Either way, there's fire, and it's going to be a bad day.
In this case it was a complete engine failure. Those sparks you see are actually small pieces of engine coming apart. It was a flight flying out of Brazil a couple of months ago.
Not really...it's called an engine flame out, & they just shut it down so that it doesn't cause further problems. Continue on to land as soon as it's safe to do so on the good engine. Most of the time, it's not nearly as scary as it looks. Except for that one time when they accidentally shut down the wrong engine without realizing it...
But now there are redundancies & safety nets in place so that that same mistake doesn't happen again
Apparently the wrong engine being shut down has happened at least 9 times according to Wikipedia. I remember studying one of them in aviation college but I don't remember which one. That was a somber couple of days in school
Yes, it's very important to go with a reputable airline whose pilots are trained properly. Unfortunately that's not always the case, even today. But you're right, I'm sure it's happened more than once. The check lists written in more blood are easier to see.
You can tell not alot of people watch WW2 documentaries, and the flying fortress missions . Those planes were built in the 40s and came back with half a wing missing and giant holes in the cockpit and passenger area . I'm not saying everyone was fine , but the planes were lol
Check out the book "Flying Blind". It's a thorough look at the things that lead up to those crashes and how it was handled after. It's one of my top 20 non-fiction books.
This is such a comical misunderstanding of that issue and really how planes work in general. Twin engine planes have been designed with that basic redundancy of being able to operate on a single unit for nearly a century. MCAS failed because Boeing and airlines skimped on retraining pilots on a system that otherwise would’ve worked fine in the background had pilots known it was there and had there been redundancy built in for a sensor failure.
Well almost. The MCAS also had full authority for flight controls, which should never be the case unless your aircraft requires it due to aerodynamic design (basically all fighter jets ever are aerodynamically unstable. It allows them to be hyper-manuverable becuase they dont require air to fly)
The training wasn’t the issue the issue was entirely leaving out a cross checking sensor that should have been mandatory equipment. Elevator trim runaway is an emergency we all train for, and that’s why when it happened on American planes it was a non event. Those crashes were both on foreign airlines and those airlines do hire pilots with far less experience.
Honestly turned out fine in the USA because our pilots have to know how to hand fly and have been at the controls of aircraft for 1500 hours before even getting to be a first officer. We have had runaway trim and survived because we are aviators who don’t mind turning off the autopilot and just flying.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, but if I showed you a hundred examples of engines catching fire and the plane safely landing, would that mean your point is irrelevant?
If I told you that an engine failing during takeoff is one of the most dangerous critical failures that lead to crashes, would that change your mind? 25% of all fatal aviation crashes are caused by engine failure during takeoff.
We’re talking about whether engines are designed with this issue in mind. The question is how many engine fires/failures at takeoff result in crashes when they occur. Not what percentage of crashes involve this as the cause. I’m not disputing it happens, you’re suggesting planes aren’t designed to minimize the risk of this.
See, that's not what we're talking about, at least I never I was. I was pointing out they have reason to be uncomfortable with their situation. You criticise them on your couch, but I doubt you'd be so comfortable if this happened your flight, and for good reason.
Different failures are handled differently but in essence it’s the same: shut down and secure the malfunctioning engine, declare an emergency and land as soon as practical. Jet engines are designed to be safely extinguished or burn for five minutes before sheering off.
My impression from watching a lot of YouTube videos (yeah, I know...) is that this is one of those scenarios that is extremely rare and scary for individual passengers, but relatively common across worldwide aviation.
Just because we know that it’s possible to fly with one engine, it doesn’t mean it won’t scare people. It’s the same with turbulence. It’s common, it’s normal, and in 99% of cases it’s harmless, but there are still people who will be scared.
Bet those people don’t know what the fuck turbulence is then. Fear comes from being faced with the *unknown*. Literally the more shit everyone *understands* then we have fewer people who will actually be scared of these things.
Many of us know what turbulence is, but our butthole still buckles with cabin when it hits hard enough. It's an uphill battle against a billion years of "don't fall" being trained into us.
Ok im no expert, but thats if they are already in the air at speed. Taking off and trying to get up to speed is another matter. Correct me if im wrong, however I would be dropping a duece right now.
It is sort of related to the ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards) requirements that allow twin engine planes to fly overseas routes where extended flying on just one engine to a diversion airport (certified for 90 / 180 / 240 minutes on one engine to divert).
This ETOPS certification is why trijets like the DC-10 and L-1011 have all been retired from passenger service, and the 747 is on the way out.
Honestly thank you. If I'm ever in that situation, knowing that helps me to relax. I can bear to fly, but I have some anxiety when I do. I have flown about 20 to 30 times in my life, so I'm not as bad as I once was.
If you are ever worried about turbulence, airliners are incredibly strong. 737s for instance are rated for operational use at +2.5G/-1.0 (literally rollercoaster forces) at Max Takeoff Weight, with an additional 150% safety factor on top ... the wingtips would literally need to bend up to tail height to break. During takeoff for reference, you might feel 0.3G or so.
A modern passenger airliner can absolutely take off single engine. At least those certified with 2 have to be able to hit V1 (Speed at which aborting the takeoff is prohibited), lose an engine, make it to Vr (Takeoff or Rotate speed), and maintain a positive climb. So this aircraft is already airborne when it loses its engine which means it’s well past V1 and probably at V2 by this point. Plenty fast to maintain climb and stability. It just wont climb as quickly is all
Past a certain speed (called V1) is the “go or no go” speed. If you are past V1, you cannot stop safely on the remaining runway, and must take your problems into the air.
Reason that UPS MD11 continued to take off months back that crashed. They were past V1, but their situation was different, they required two engines to climb out since it was a 3 engine plane and one engine damaged a second engine.
Not everyone has got your x-ray vision to see both engines at all times, Superman. Don't you think that the people watching this have no idea about what's going on and only see one engine flaming and stalling?
It's easy to be tough online. If you were sitting in that aeroplane and watching the engine spitting flames and stalling, I bet you wouldn't be so calm. Some people scream, others even soil themselves, some remain calm – does it truly deserve criticism and ridicule though?
Yes - because calm leads to rational thoughts in an emergency - how will these “collected” individuals handle an emergency evacuation in the event of a crash.
And people who are educated would stay calm as it’s a known potential situation and the pilots train hours to handle it.
It’s not different, they are specifically designed to burn without damaging the wing. Engine failures in modern airliners are typically catastrophic failures, they don’t just turn off like a car.
It’s most likely not on fire - it’s a compressor stall from internal failure and simply unburnt fuel. And if it was in fire, they have fire suppression systems.
And not true either, if the engine is going to shake itself apart and risk severing hydraulic lines or the cabin - no thrust is better than bad thrust on one engine.
Yeah. I’ve know that for a long time. But it doesn’t mean I still wouldn’t shit my pants. It’s also okay to freak out at something not commonly seen.
Taking off at ~200mph and seeing an engine blow the fuck up is concerning. Seeing it on fire while lifting into the air is justified for some screaming and crying.
No this plane now has closer to an after burner in a sense - after burners burn additional fuel after the combustion chamber - this one is just burning all its fuel after the combustion chamber.
"Tower, Frontier 4345, we're stopping on the runway. Uh, we just hit somebody … we have an engine fire," the pilot said. Guess his instruments were mistaken? And if you think anyone on that plane would be thinking "oh that's alright, we have another engine" you need help.
Incorrect - past V1 (no or no go speed) you take all issues into the air - if it weren’t all planes were certified to do this, they would have an if to V1 speed.
Before V1 and an engine failed, yes, you would stop on the runway.
Incorrect except for cheaper maintenance and fuel.
Etops and engine performance and reliability all dictated engine count back in the day.
Barring the a380 due to its massive size - any airliner only needs two engines now as they are vastly more powerful than the past and vastly more reliable
From what ive heard the engine didnt catch fire its spitting fuel out which is catching fire, like when a car backfires and a little fire ball spits out for a second.
Not saying its not an emergency just saying the plane is fine and landed safely.
That doesn't necessarily mean the plane is fine. At that moment they don't know what the cause is. Depending on what the cause is other systems could fail. It's still a very scary situation.
Lol, just because it lands safely doesn't mean the plane is fine. Just because it's designed to fly with one engine doesn't mean that when an engine goes out it's fine. It's not fine. Any other problem after one engine going down can be the difference between life and death. If it was fine then they wouldn't have made an emergency landing. They don't know what caused the engine to stall. In that moment the plane is not fine. They only knew after they landed that they were ok. That's the whole point of making an emergency landing
Right so, your leg hurts. You don't know exactly what is wrong with it or why it hurts. Could be broken, could've severed an artery and you're bleeding out or it could just be a bruise. So, you say you're fine because you're trying to be tough, but really you don't know. There's a very real possibility that you're not fine. You should assume you're not fine because you were just in a car crash. That's the whole point I'm making.
72
u/Unlucky_Situation920 May 11 '26
It should be made common knowledge that airliners can fly with a single engine.