That likely wouldn't drop a 7 series jet though.
if it was during approach you bet your ass it would low power setting and losing an engine is not good time go try it in a sim
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That likely wouldn't drop a 7 series jet though.
Well, that would be correct. Mostly. Three holers are certified on two and four holers on three. Twins are certified on one. All of the above also have to be able to to takeoff down to the certified minimum number of operative engines and are committed if an engine out event happens after V1 (14 CFR 25.121).
Sudden asymmetrical thrust while losing altitude and approaching terrain? I'd go with that is a bad time. Maybe not #1 (which would be right after you lost the OTHER engine), or #2 (right after hitting that TO/GA button/switch), or #3 (right at V1) but probably #4. About the only "good" time is during cruise at altitude with fuel and a diversion airport right under you.
Well, seeing how each contract gets better and better these days are better than yesterdays.
Noise is a weird thing in planes. If it hit the tail they would never hear it up front. Hit the flaps (which unless you had a pretty aggressive flap setting would be.....interesting) probably not going to hear it either
if it was during approach you bet your ass it would low power setting and losing an engine is not good time go try it in a sim
Actually on final you’re pretty much at zero thrust if you’ve been on the ball. So no assymetrical thrust there. Earlier in the approach maybe.
Yes...but there’s one very important thing they don’t cover: obstacle clearance. They touch on it with climb gradient but the simple fact of the matter is that under some circumstances (high density altitude at max gross weight for example) you might not have sufficient performance to meet the required obstacle clearance for a particular departure procedure. Which would make your day a very bad one...
But chances are your pilot did their job and planned for that on takeoff right .
Actually on final you’re pretty much at zero thrust if you’ve been on the ball. So no assymetrical thrust there. Earlier in the approach maybe.
And the best time to lose an engine is on the ground at the terminal .
See above.
sooooooooooooooooooooo, they never saw or recovered the 'drone', but assume it was a 'drone'?
And how would that make things better? It would only make it worse for people legitimately using drones. The people flying at airports already demonstrated that they're not affected by a ban. Hell DJI drones won't even take off near airports and certain locations, as is. So an outright ban would solve absolutely nothing.They are. If that's not sufficient, the next step is going to be an outright ban on drones period.
That likely wouldn't drop a 7 series jet though.
Honestly, yes I am. A consumer level drone at 35,000 feet? I'm more than a little skeptical. There are few to no consumer radios I know of capable of even close to that range.Anyone surprised?
Honestly, yes I am. A consumer level drone at 35,000 feet? I'm more than a little skeptical. There are few to no consumer radios I know of capable of even close to that range.
And how would that make things better? It would only make it worse for people legitimately using drones. The people flying at airports already demonstrated that they're not affected by a ban. Hell DJI drones won't even take off near airports and certain locations, as is. So an outright ban would solve absolutely nothing.
They don't pull back to idle because 1. too fast descent rate, and 2. they need the ability to quickly spool up the engines in case of an emergency. Pulling back to idle means that it would take a few seconds for the engines to start providing thrust again, in which case it might be too late.
Yes, way fewer law abiding citizens. And get off my lawn!Way way fewer people will buy drones if they're banned.
I'm surprised off-the-shell drones haven't been used in terrorist attacks. It seems like it would be a cheap and easy way to cause mass casualties.
Considering the last two planes I've been on were either C130s or bushmasters not particularly. One is too heavy to do anything out of power and the other is a lawnmower that flies. For some stupid reason, my brain did not equate people weight to cargo weight.Your kidding, right?
Ok I missed that part. I'm less surprised now.It was on final, not FL35. You shouldn't be surprised.
literally could've been anything. UFO possibly. Maybe rear ended Santa's sleigh doing a test flight. I don't see all signs pointing to drone. Really feels like they just wanted to make an article about drones, since that what the article is about, and the incident is hardly discussed after the first paragraph. They also fail to mention what altitude this occurred at.no blood and feathers it wasnt a bird... cant think of any thing else they could hit in clear air that would do that
It was on final, not FL35.
The drone slowly comes into view? That would never happen; see the comments saying it's a fake video.
There is a good example.
Actually on final you’re pretty much at zero thrust if you’ve been on the ball. So no assymetrical thrust there. Earlier in the approach maybe.
Actually on final you are under power, especially in transport category aircraft. Power is not brought back to idle until crossing the numbers and the 50' / 100' call (depends on the large airframe type).
I'd just like to point out that he didn't say "brought back to idle", he said "you're at zero thrust". As I'm sure you're aware, there is a big difference between the two, idle being, well, idle, and zero thrust meaning the engines are still spooled up enough to maintain speed, without increasing it.
I'd just like to point out that he didn't say "brought back to idle", he said "you're at zero thrust". As I'm sure you're aware, there is a big difference between the two, idle being, well, idle, and zero thrust meaning the engines are still spooled up enough to maintain speed, without increasing it.
I call bullshit on this. Planes are regularly tested against chickens, here is a video where mythbusters are shooting frozen chickens out of a cannon to compare vs thawed chickens. The damage was about the same. Now it is true that a bird will destroy an engine, but too much here just seems strange. And yeah there may be metal parts in a drone but all the same they are mostly plastic.
That's not a bird strike test.
If you people actually think that planes were not designed with bird collision in mind then...
Because bird sightings are so rare.
Birds won't bring down planes. Nor will medium-sized drones.
Still not ok to fly near airports.
Then why have birds brought down planes?
Then why have birds brought down planes?
There is a good example.
Dual engine failure. Flocks of birds. Fortunately, rare. Still scares me a bit to know about when I fly.
In reality (and thankfully), single engine failure is far more common and dealt with by skilled pilots. Engine failure scenarios at take off and landing are probably one of the most practiced events. Airplane manufacturers and airlines do not get certifications unless they can pass criteria for single engine scenarios. A single drone is not likely to damage both engines simultaneously. That being said, anyone that flies a drone near an airport is a complete moron.