모두
← Back to Squawk list
Airbus A350-900 Gains Beyond 180 Minutes Diversion Time ETOPS From FAA
The Airbus A350-900 has gained extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) approval from FAA for routes that require beyond 180 minutes diversion time, which will give US A350 operators more range and flexibility with the aircraft. (atwonline.com) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
This is a totally random thought, but if an aircraft is going to wind up in the drink because both engines quit, regardless of the low probability of such an event occurring, what I would want would be the ability to safely set the aircraft down on water and break out the rafts. It would seem that the primary impediment to setting it down safely would be the engines. Once they start gulping water the nose of the aircraft will pitch straight down, or if they hit asymmetrically, then they'll rip the aircraft apart (see Ethiopian flight 961). True, Captain Sully pulled off a miracle on the Hudson, but the A320 engines do not have a nine foot fan, and the Hudson is not the open ocean. In such a dire circumstance it would be helpful if there was some way to drop the engines prior to impact so that the craft would have a better chance of landing intact on the water, and be able to float long enough for the rafts to be deployed and filled with passengers. Yes, I know that the cure might be worse than the disease as we might have engines being dropped all over the world, but it was just a thought.
If you had to put one in the North Atlantic in the winter, you might as well nose it over and go straight in, because nobody is going to survive very long, raft or not.
Hello,
I have some question for the long-haul non-stop aircraft manufacturers.
In these days of flight exceeding 12 hours, why do the manufacturers uses hard plastic for the pax seat handles? Why can't they use some soft material?
How about providing some cushion in pax seats (777-300 ER)? Being a formal FAA Acft Dispatcher, I do understand the weight concerns.
Thanks,
I have some question for the long-haul non-stop aircraft manufacturers.
In these days of flight exceeding 12 hours, why do the manufacturers uses hard plastic for the pax seat handles? Why can't they use some soft material?
How about providing some cushion in pax seats (777-300 ER)? Being a formal FAA Acft Dispatcher, I do understand the weight concerns.
Thanks,
Based on the catastrophic hand flying difficulties that surfaced on AF 447, lets hope the ability to fly on one engine during " alternate law" ops in the Flight Levels goes better. This is truly scarey stuff, flying 300 plus humans on one engine over water for 5-6 hours - the average pax is oblivious of course. Yes, before someone says it- "the odds of a modern high tech turbofan engine quitting in flight are extremely low" so no problem right. Truly hope the 747's don't all disappear- hope you are listening British Air.
Low perhaps but not without merut ron...remember the Air Transat flight that had to fly like a glider after both engines went out due to fuel issues...aircraft manufactures forget that on twin engine craft if both engines quit u have no power
The Air Transit loss of both engines was caused by improper mx procedures that caused a fuel leak and the pilots cross-feeding fuel to be vented overboard until all fuel was gone. Had a similar mx failure and improper crew action occurred on a four engine jet, the result would have been the same.... a glider, only a four engine version, not two.
Yes I know what caused it and this particular instance was a bad analigy
Yes Ron,
4 is always better than 2 but not economical.
We are fitting Wi-Fi soon so we will be keeping them to at least 2020.
4 is always better than 2 but not economical.
We are fitting Wi-Fi soon so we will be keeping them to at least 2020.