DC9 Flight 1056 MSP-PIT ..Failed engine
 

Didn't see a post on this one yet.

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...storyid=259198

happened wednesday night

Oh great, just great. (Flying 2 DC9 segments this coming weekend...)

I don't see what the big deal is. Machines inevitably fail. That's why the planes have two engines and the pilots do so much training.

If nothing else, this gives me more confidence in NW and its pilots. ^

You are correct. A 747 can lose 3 engines and continue to fly. Any plane can fly on one engine.

I've worked '47's that have lost an engine over the Pacific and narrow bodies over land. The passengers aren't even aware that anything has happened.

I have been on two DL 767 flights out of TPA that had an engine failure. No biggie.

Oh, I know (that's why they have multiple engines etc etc). I just hate it when it happens right before I have to fly - too fresh in my mind and all....

DL131 01JUL lost an engine crossing the atlantic on the 030W route and had to land in KEF. Must be a great feeling for everyone involved.

Indeed it can fly with 1, or even zero engines... but it can't maintain level flight. It'll be in descent from the point it loses the 3rd engine.

Same thing happened to me on an Alaska Airlines flight. Sounds like your's was handled in a better manor than ours!!! We thought it was curtains for us. You should have seen the way they picked up the pieces, like we didn't exist!!!

A couple of years ago, a BA 747 flight from LAX to LHR had an engine failure shortly after takeoff. The crew decided to continue the flight on three engines.

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2420&comm=0

Reminds me of an old pilot joke.

Single Engine Fighter "Tower, Redbird 5 over the west training area for landing"
Tower "Redbird 5, hold current position, B-52, 25 mile final with an emergency, engine out"
Fighter "how many out?"
Tower "one"
Fighter "oh, I see, emergency, the dreaded seven engine landing"

Yes, you are correct. My point was that the 747 wouldn't drop out of the sky on one engine. There would be a controled landing.

Engine failures
 

Please do not worry about them too much. Most engine failures that occur can be dealt with in an entirely routine manner by the flight deck. It is only engine fires, loss of multiple engines and "uncontained" engine failures that are significant. It will be a small element of the risks associated with travelling on NW.

If you get a failure on a twin, it may well have to descend to a lower level (as it will slow down and therefore stall at high cruise level altitude) and divert (flying at say 26,000 feet is less efficient and therefore burns more fuel). This is designed into every flight plan across the Atlantic or Pacific.

The only major causes of multiple engine failures in recent years have been bird ingestion, fuel leaks and maintenance technician errors. The technician errors have now been identified and new working practices introduced to reduce the possibility.

Fuel leaks are rare, although Air Transat had one a few years ago. Of course, Air Canada ran out of fuel as well in a 767. Is there something about those Canadians...

If I were you, I would worry more about accidents at airports and in the ATC system. However, if you are going to worry about the risk of flying on one of the big US carriers on a mainline jet, you may as well just go and have a nervous breakdown with the rest of life's risks.

I am not saying that you should not be aware. You should know how to open the overwing exits, the brace position etc. If you think that there is something wrong, do not be afraid to speak up and ask the crew. There are a few experts around on FT to ask too ;)

Happy landings

Spottie