PAL flight looses Starboard engine on take off

[Marvin Boggs]

Watching that vid, I'm struck by what utter SNOWFLAKES people have become

[Old55]

To answer some questions.

That 777 was fully loaded it lost one engine during take off. Did it crash? No, it continued take off and turned around to land safely. All commercial aircraft must be able to continue take off safely in the event of engine failure.

A 737, 777, 787 can fly very long distances on one engine, thousands of miles.

PAL lost their heavy maintenance certification many years ago. It's contracted outside of Philippines. Engines are very reliable and undergo rigorous inspection. Still there is a risk.

Engines do fail in flight and aircraft are designed to safely fly if that occurs. Recently during an in flight catastrophic failure part of a turbine entered the aircraft cabin causing depressurization the aircraft had to drop quickly to 10,000 feet. I think some passengers were injured by debris. 

We are at much higher risk of being injured traveling to the airport than flying.

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, intrepid said:

I figured they could fly on one engine but to take off fully loaded with only one engine is amazing.

Designed to be that way.  The thrust available on one engine on all twin jet airliners is sufficient to  safely get airborne after V1, even at max all up weight. Any competent pilot should be able to do what this chap did.  Still, respect that he did it.  In over 30 years of flying as a pilot, I only lost one of two engines 3 times in my career and none of those failures was on take off.  

[OnMyWay]

2 hours ago, Old55 said:

A fully loaded 777 lost it's starboard engine on takeoff from LAX bound for MNL. Was able to turn around and safely land.

https://ktla.com/2019/11/21/plane-safely-returns-to-lax-after-experiencing-mechanical-problem-shortly-after-takeoff/

A lot of people, even inside the terminal, said they heard a loud explosion.  Where do you think the aircraft was when that occurred?  Still on the runway?  At LAX, the aircraft take off over the ocean 99% of the time, and it the aircraft was already over the ocean, I don't see how a loud boom would be heard back inside the terminals.  They are fairly soundproof for obvious reasons.

[Tommy T.]

13 minutes ago, OnMyWay said:

At LAX, the aircraft take off over the ocean 99% of the time, and it the aircraft was already over the ocean, I don't see how a loud boom would be heard back inside the terminals.

Typically the wind in LA is onshore (from the west) so that could make a difference and help carry the sound if the plane was not too far away? And, whatever direction it took off, if there was any breeze, it would have taken off into it, right?

[OnMyWay]

49 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

Typically the wind in LA is onshore (from the west) so that could make a difference and help carry the sound if the plane was not too far away? And, whatever direction it took off, if there was any breeze, it would have taken off into it, right?

Yes, possible, but I could not grasp that passengers inside the terminal heard a loud boom.  As I mentioned, the terminals are very sound insulated.

Now here is a video from inside the plane.  This may not be the initial boom, but these are not loud booms.  And the title says "mid-flight", not on the runway.  Now I'm not sure if I could stay as calm as those people did!

 

[OnMyWay]

This version is very dramatic, with music!  They did take off over the ocean.  I'm not sure I believe those stories from passengers inside the terminal hearing a loud boom.  The loud boom many been from something else and a coincidence.

This video also says at the beginning that it was probably a compressor failure.  It appears that after the fire spurts were gone, they were flying fairly normally.  I assume they were on one engine at that point.

 

[Arizona Kid]

7 hours ago, jimeve said:

Could they fly over the Pacific with only one engine? I doubt it.

I think they could. Plenty of fuel if only one engine is burning it. 

[jimeve]

1 hour ago, Arizona Kid said:

I think they could. Plenty of fuel if only one engine is burning it. 

Taken from one of Tom's quotes.... The Boeing 777 is designed to fly for at least 3 hours on one engine for a distance up to 1320 nautical miles or 2110 Kilometers. Don't how big the pacific is but......only one engine.

[OnMyWay]

18 minutes ago, jimeve said:

Taken from one of Tom's quotes.... The Boeing 777 is designed to fly for at least 3 hours on one engine for a distance up to 1320 nautical miles or 2110 Kilometers. Don't how big the pacific is but......only one engine.

There are probably a few alternate airports that could be used in an emergency.  Here is an article about that, and a cool website.

https://planefinder.net/about/news/transpolar-flights-new-routes-old-tricks/

https://planefinder.net/