# 747 Sucks (baggage container into engine)



## WhoozOn1st

This happened Monday; running behind on reading the Times.

Metal baggage container sucked into jet engine at LAX


----------



## Sam31452

Things like this are exactly the reason why I love train travel.

If the engine breaks it just means a delay and not instant death like in a plane.


----------



## AAARGH!

WhoozOn1st said:


> This happened Monday; running behind on reading the Times.
> Metal baggage container sucked into jet engine at LAX


Geeeeeze. Talk about a square peg into a round hole.

Also, this happened on the ground, so the chances of an instant death are next to nil.


----------



## Sam31452

> Also, this happened on the ground, so the chances of an instant death are next to nil.


Yes of course, but if the bozos or clowns or however they would like to be refered to, can do such a thing on the ground, immagine how easy it is to get in serious trouble when not being on the ground, reasons for plane crashes are usually quite simple things.


----------



## saxman

Sam31452 said:


> Also, this happened on the ground, so the chances of an instant death are next to nil.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course, but if the bozos or clowns or however they would like to be refered to, can do such a thing on the ground, immagine how easy it is to get in serious trouble when not being on the ground, reasons for plane crashes are usually quite simple things.
Click to expand...

Actually most plane crashes are caused by a complex chain of events that lead up to the crash. Even what may seem as simple causes can often be traced to before the plane even left the ground. Thats why even the most simple incidents are investigated thoroughly so as to learn from others mistakes. Unfortunately, many of the regulations are written in blood. I'm sure same goes for many railroad regulations as well.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Sam31452 said:


> Things like this are exactly the reason why I love train travel.If the engine breaks it just means a delay and not instant death like in a plane.


I think your description is closer to what happens in a helecopter than an airplane, and even in a helicopter it is sometimes possible to safely land after the engine quits if the helicopter was moving fast enough at the time and if the pilot doesn't screw up.

An airplane without working engines is a glider. There are plenty of pilots who intentionally fly gliders that simply don't have their own engines, generally by getting a powered plane to tow them to a reasonable altitude.  Admittedly, an airplane with no working engines has handling characteristics that aren't quite as desireable as the handling characteristics of a purpose built glider, but an engine failure at altitude is certainly not instant death.

Also, scheduled commercial flights with a reasonably large number of passengers happen on planes with multiple engines that are generally designed so that one engine can fail without the plane turning into a glider.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AAARGH said:


> Also, this happened on the ground, so the chances of an instant death are next to nil.


Actually, instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.

On planes with propellers, a spinning propellor is nearly invisible, and walking into it can be deadly.

There's a part of the opening sequence to MacGyver with Richard Dean Anderson resting his arm on a propellor. I'm sort of amazed that they shot that at all; the design of the typical magneto shutoff switch is not fail safe at all. (Specifically, if the wire to that switch is inadvertently disconnected, the failure will be in the direction of having the engine on when the pilot intends for it to be off.) Though maybe someone was sure that the fuel mixture was set such that the engine couldn't run?


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this happened on the ground, so the chances of an instant death are next to nil.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.
> 
> On planes with propellers, a spinning propellor is nearly invisible, and walking into it can be deadly.
> 
> There's a part of the opening sequence to MacGyver with Richard Dean Anderson resting his arm on a propellor. I'm sort of amazed that they shot that at all; the design of the typical magneto shutoff switch is not fail safe at all. (Specifically, if the wire to that switch is inadvertently disconnected, the failure will be in the direction of having the engine on when the pilot intends for it to be off.) Though maybe someone was sure that the fuel mixture was set such that the engine couldn't run?
Click to expand...

In the case of the jet engine in this incident it's fortunate that the container was so large as to be inedible. A smaller, hard item ingested could have caused the engine to start disintegrating and throwing turbine blades. They'd shoot right through the engine housing, cowling, and possibly - depending on direction - straight through the skin of the passenger compartment, shredding anything or anyone in their path. Joel is right: instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Sam31452 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like this are exactly the reason why I love train travel.If the engine breaks it just means a delay and not instant death like in a plane.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your description is closer to what happens in a helecopter than an airplane, and even in a helicopter it is sometimes possible to safely land after the engine quits if the helicopter was moving fast enough at the time and if the pilot doesn't screw up.
> 
> An airplane without working engines is a glider. There are plenty of pilots who intentionally fly gliders that simply don't have their own engines, generally by getting a powered plane to tow them to a reasonable altitude. Admittedly, an airplane with no working engines has handling characteristics that aren't quite as desireable as the handling characteristics of a purpose built glider, but an engine failure at altitude is certainly not instant death.
> 
> Also, scheduled commercial flights with a reasonably large number of passengers happen on planes with multiple engines that are generally designed so that one engine can fail without the plane turning into a glider.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this story;







The Gimli Glider


----------



## PetalumaLoco




----------



## Alice

PetalumaLoco said:


> Reminds me of this story; (image in quote snipped)The Gimli Glider


One incredible story here ...


----------



## Sam31452

> Actually most plane crashes are caused by a complex chain of events that lead up to the crash.


Like: Somebody built in a non working altimeter.

You may agree that there are usually two of them, yes.

But if the pilot (and that happened) just assumes that his altimeter is working and that of his co-pilot isn't, then this leads to a crash.

I share Einsteins belief that human stupidity is infinite.....

Of course most plane crashes are the end of a long chain of errors. But just because humanity at least learned that one should check whether there is still enough fuel in the tank BEFORE take off (After crash caused by lack of fuel they invented the checklist), this doesn't mean that there aren't enough other error possibilities around.


----------



## Neil_M

WhoozOn1st said:


> Joel is right: instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.


Indeed. You can never go near a plane because you are scared of flying or you dislike the dehumanisation, and think you are safe. Till the plummeting plane lands on your house.....


----------



## Ryan

Or sometimes the jet engine reaches out and grabs you personally:



(although this guy lived, others haven't been this lucky on the flight deck)


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Sam31452 said:


> But just because humanity at least learned that one should check whether there is still enough fuel in the tank BEFORE take off (After crash caused by lack of fuel they invented the checklist),


Have we? I'm pretty sure AOPA has concluded that there are still plenty of cases of private airplanes running out of fuel.

This is actually not as simple as checking that there's fuel in the tank before taking off, because, especially if all the seats are occupied, the airplane often doesn't have capacity to carry enough fuel to fly for an extra two hours beyond the proposed destination. If weather deteriorates or there are unexpected headwinds, the fuel that was supposed to be extra can be used up fairly quickly.


----------



## DET63

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Sam31452 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just because humanity at least learned that one should check whether there is still enough fuel in the tank BEFORE take off (After crash caused by lack of fuel they invented the checklist),
> 
> 
> 
> Have we? I'm pretty sure AOPA has concluded that there are still plenty of cases of private airplanes running out of fuel.
> 
> This is actually not as simple as checking that there's fuel in the tank before taking off, because, especially if all the seats are occupied, the airplane often doesn't have capacity to carry enough fuel to fly for an extra two hours beyond the proposed destination. If weather deteriorates or there are unexpected headwinds, the fuel that was supposed to be extra can be used up fairly quickly.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a 767 that crash-landed up in Canada a number of years ago (mid '90s, IIRC)? The fuel gauge was broken, so a dipstick check of fuel in the tanks was done prior to take-off. The dipstick was calibrated in pounds, but the crew thought it was in kilos (Canada is a metric country!), meaning the plane took off with less than half the fuel it was expected to be carrying.


----------



## Ryan

It didn't crash, it successfully made an emergency landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider


----------



## jis

WhoozOn1st said:


> In the case of the jet engine in this incident it's fortunate that the container was so large as to be inedible. A smaller, hard item ingested could have caused the engine to start disintegrating and throwing turbine blades. They'd shoot right through the engine housing, cowling, and possibly - depending on direction - straight through the skin of the passenger compartment, shredding anything or anyone in their path. Joel is right: instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.


Actually no. Disintegration of the turbine and fans would not send anything flying out of the engine unless there was something else that went wrong. Such things used to happen in previous generation engines. The current engines are designed to disintegrate without sending missiles every which way.


----------



## jis

Neil_M said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joel is right: instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. You can never go near a plane because you are scared of flying or you dislike the dehumanisation, and think you are safe. Till the plummeting plane lands on your house.....
Click to expand...

Or worse..... on your train! 

I suggest people go and look up passenger fatalities per passenger mile traveled and compare figures between trains and planes.


----------



## jis

HokieNav said:


> It didn't crash, it successfully made an emergency landing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider


And it was put back in service and flew for many many years. It was finally decommissioned last year as I recall.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joel is right: instant death from an airplane engine on the ground is quite possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. You can never go near a plane because you are scared of flying or you dislike the dehumanisation, and think you are safe. Till the plummeting plane lands on your house.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or worse..... on your train!
> 
> I suggest people go and look up passenger fatalities per passenger mile traveled and compare figures between trains and planes.
Click to expand...

Per 100 million miles traveled, 1.018 for the airplane vs. 7.6 for trains. Average of the last 10 years from 1997-2007, the last year for which stats are available.

However, it is worth pointing out a few other points.

Many more people travel by plane in this country, than by train, which skews the numbers.

The airplane numbers include commercial flights only, which I equate to Amtrak and commuter RR's. Adding in private aircraft would hurt the airline's numbers. Train data also includes subways/light rail for which there really is no airline equivalent.

Actual fatalities: 753 airplane, 66 train.


----------



## PRR 60

Both modes are incredibly safe. The old adage is that the most dangerous part of any flight (or train ride) is the drive to the airport (or train station). That's true.

Depending on the damage, that could be one expensive boo boo at LAX. A 747 engine runs about $20 million.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> Both modes are incredibly safe. The old adage is that the most dangerous part of any flight (or train ride) is the drive to the airport (or train station). That's true.


My point exactly. It is inconsistent with documented facts to claim that flying on a commercial airliner in the US is significantly more unsafe than riding a train.



> Depending on the damage, that could be one expensive boo boo at LAX. A 747 engine runs about $20 million.


Apparently the container did not make it past the nacelle, so internal damage was possibly minimal - perhaps some damage to the front fan disc or two. The nacelle would of course need - shall we say - a significant replacement.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

I think what is good to point out is that normally when things go wrong on an airplane the mortality rate is higher (for obvious reasons, going at 500mph at 29,000 feet...) whereas even in the worst case scenarios with trains the mortality rate is less. This is due, of course, to spreading hundreds of people out across a heavy steel consist.

My only point is-- if given the choice of getting into an accident in a plane or train.... ....I would not choose my car.


----------

