• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

Damaged engine leads to emergency landing of Airlink flight

Agent_Smith

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
10,707
#22
An Airlink flight was forced to make an emergency landing at OR Tambo International Airport on Wednesday night after one of its four engines was unexpectedly damaged.
As opposed to...?
 

Gordon_R

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
3,914
#23
Worse things can happen: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41944752

A Belfast passenger plane has landed without nose gear after it experienced "technical issues" and circled for more than an hour above the Irish Sea.
Fifty-three passengers and four crew members were on board the Flybe flight BE331 from Belfast City Airport to Inverness, which had to be diverted.
It landed at Belfast International Airport at about 13:30 GMT.
The airline said one passenger was taken to hospital with "a minor hand injury" but no-one else was hurt.
 

neoprema

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
1,199
#24
"At no point was the safety of the passengers or crew in jeopardy."

Um, so why does it have 4 engines then? If there's nothing wrong with it losing 2 of them??!

They need to word their statements correctly for example: "There was a danger posed at having lost TWO engines however the plane is designed to handle such, and the crew flew it successfully so that passengers were only in minor danger".

Its like driving a car at 120kph and getting a flat - yes there's 3 more wheels, traction control and ESP but you are still IN MORE JEAOPARDY than you were with 4 functioning wheels...
 

The_Assimilator

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
5,923
#25
"At no point was the safety of the passengers or crew in jeopardy."

Um, so why does it have 4 engines then? If there's nothing wrong with it losing 2 of them??!

They need to word their statements correctly for example: "There was a danger posed at having lost TWO engines however the plane is designed to handle such, and the crew flew it successfully so that passengers were only in minor danger".

Its like driving a car at 120kph and getting a flat - yes there's 3 more wheels, traction control and ESP but you are still IN MORE JEAOPARDY than you were with 4 functioning wheels...
Allow me to introduce the concept of "redundancy" to you. Then, consider exploring why such a concept is more important in an aircraft than a ground vehicle.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,185
#26
"At no point was the safety of the passengers or crew in jeopardy."

Um, so why does it have 4 engines then? If there's nothing wrong with it losing 2 of them??!

They need to word their statements correctly for example: "There was a danger posed at having lost TWO engines however the plane is designed to handle such, and the crew flew it successfully so that passengers were only in minor danger".

Its like driving a car at 120kph and getting a flat - yes there's 3 more wheels, traction control and ESP but you are still IN MORE JEAOPARDY than you were with 4 functioning wheels...
Absolutely the worst possible comparison.

This aircraft was designed to be able to fly under those conditions.
 

neoprema

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
1,199
#27
Allow me to introduce the concept of "redundancy" to you. Then, consider exploring why such a concept is more important in an aircraft than a ground vehicle.
My point is not about redundancy. Its about claiming passengers were never at risk. They must have been at some kind of risk surely?
 

Napalm2880

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,652
#28
Absolutely the worst possible comparison.

This aircraft was designed to be able to fly under those conditions.
These aircraft are also designed to land on water but that doesn't mean it's safe to do so. It's a completely daft statement on behalf of the Airlink spokesperson.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
10,925
#29
My point is not about redundancy. Its about claiming passengers were never at risk. They must have been at some kind of risk surely?
In the likely scenario where debris punctures fuel tanks/severes lines and electrical cabling/damages control surfaces/penetrates the fuselage, passengers and crew would have been in grave danger.

However, this didn't happen and debris only took out #1 engine. Crew are trained to handle this and the aircraft was designed to handle the conditions it was flying (and landing) under.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,185
#33
looks like bird poo to me...

But that hydraulic fluid (or whatever it was) must have got shot out with such a high velocity to splatter the opposite engine before getting carried away by the slipstream...
Those look like holes and not oil marks to me.
 
Top