Boeing 737 MAX - software wouldn't fix faulty airframe

Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
That was probably the soccer field/park you saw. It left a debris field of near a mile in length of parts falling. Did you see the photo of the air intake ring in the guys front yard? It hit and demolished the roof of his crew cab pickup truck before bouncing and landing against a tree.
thank you
I don't know the area,
certainly in the UK you would be hard to find an area to dump an engine,

but mid Atlantic ?
the drag from a spinning engine is still high,
so being able to drop it should increase the range on one engine.
( with one engine , the 777 can not keep altitude , its coming down no matter what )

Came back once from SA on a 747, which had 5 engines !
apparently the 5th was being returned for service in the UK,
due to the extra drag , we had to stop in france to refuel,

Also flew on a 747 , mid atlantic has an engine go US,
we still arrived on time in NY

Sorry, I agree with the US president,
any plane that can not fly when one engine goes US, is not safe,,

In this case, they were lucky that the plane was very lightly loaded,
fuel, cargo and passengers, and denvor although high, as a dammed long runway.

If it had been say NY then they would not have been able to make a landing till they had burnt off more fuel,
an hour or two, with that engine on fire

dammed lucky ,

was just wondering what people thought of the idea of being able to drop an engine,


Joined Sep 24, 2015
I heard all the hydraulic lines were torn out on the engine's departure, so the flaps on that side retracted, causing it to roll and crash. They still had two engines left and otherwise could have easily stayed in the air.
Yes, they were. AND the forward slats are cable controlled. Breaking those cables would also cause them to pull back. And yes, the DC-10 out of Chicago had the engine power to keep the plane flying. They were too low to recover. But even with an engine dangling, the plane remains relatively balanced. Losing it all together means a HUGE amount of destabilization. On the DC-10 they used the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engine. Depending on which variation the engine alone (not including pylon weight) is about 8900 pounds to 9300 pounds. That would be a huge amount of destabilizing weight. Airlines are concerned with weight of the cargo going into the hold and work to balance the CG (center of gravity) within an acceptable envelope. Too much forward weight and the plane will want to nose dive. Too much rear weight - I believe there was a plane crash that was attributed to improper cargo weight distribution.

But we're not here to talk about other jet liners. I'll see if I can find the video of the plane that had too much tail weight.

Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
How about losing all three engines? Fortunately #2 was shut down for a period of time. Had they not done this the plane would have had to ditch in the Atlantic Ocean. (( Lockheed L-1011 ))
they do say that the pilots of the one that had a spontaneous disassembly of the engine, the pilots did not know as they could not see the engine !

sounds far fetched to me, but...


Joined Aug 27, 2009
Starliner update:

"During a full news conference later in the morning, Bridenstine and Chilton explained that the capsule's clock, which is programmed to govern the spacecraft's activities, somehow misinterpreted the stage of the mission. This error, which engineers refer to as an anomaly with the Mission Elapsed Time, triggered the capsule to over-control its location and burn too much fuel. "

Maybe three Timex clocks on board?