Investigation underway: A UPS cargo plane crashed shortly after taking off from the Louisville, Kentucky, airport Tuesday, leaving a fiery trail of destruction and a half- mile-long debris field. At least 12 people have died and others are injured, officials say, warning the death toll could climb as the investigation continues.
Black boxes recovered: An NTSB investigation team is on site at the crash location and has recovered the aircraft’s “black boxes” - the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ups-plane-crash-louisville-airport?ch=1
Are planes not designed with a backup(the second engine, knowing the plane can fly with just one, although evidently not take off), and a backup for the backup(a second set of engines) to prevent exactly this?
I know nothing of aircraft but im guessing because it was a cargo plane and not a passenger plane they only had one layer of redundancy instead of two?
Just to be specific as you received tons of answers already.
Yes a modern bi-jet aircraft can takeoff with only one engine (think A320, B7** etc). Provided that there isn’t any other huge issue affecting the performance or the airframe (like a wing on fire).
This MD11 was a tri-jet from another era and it seems that it lost 2 engines out of 3.
And no there are no backup engines, that would be dead weight and engines are very heavy.
That backup is the other engine, their reliability and the fact that an aircraft can still fly without engines (if at altitude of course) and glide to an airport for an emergency landing.
Insane. Thank you for the response
A follow up to my earlier response because I want to help foster your curiosity and knowledge.
This video is a good example of how the tech of trijets was very successful in its day, but ultimately lost out to the twin-engine jets we see today. Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/wfEO4bchyGE
That was very educational! But no matter how many facts you hit me with i dont think i will ever be comfortable on a twin jet. It does raise a good questions though, they mentioned quad jets are gas guzzlers due to the four engines, but couldnt they just use two? I dont see why all four engines have to be in use, i just want them to be there in case of failure. And yeah, i see the issue that now youre paying extra two carry around a bunch of weight that should hopefully never be utilized, but I would imagine an extra layer of redundancy might offset the cost of the extra weight by not making you buy a new plane when your first two engines reach the end of their life.
Basically, an extra engine wouldve saved this plane. Over the course of this planes life, would the fuel cost of that extra unused weight be more than the value of the plane, cargo on the plane, and the loss of life associated?
Or maybe there is a technical reason you cant have two unused jets? Are they impossible to cold start in air?
First, thanks for being curious. I’ll try to answer as best I can, but I am just a huge aviation nerd, so I’d welcome others to correct me if I misrepresent anything.
Could a quad jet run with only two engines, yes! But why? It would be the equivalent of you towing another car behind yours all the time, just in case the first broke. Not only are you putting more strain on the aircraft, but you’re hugely increasing drag and increasing your fuel and maintenance costs for very little benefit, so long as your primary vehicle is maintained appropriately.
Planes last 30-40+ years. Think if your next new car could last 40 years but it’s gas mileage doubled or tripled over your old car AND its maintenance costs went down by half. It’s not even a question to upgrade from a financial sense. That’s what the airlines see.
Next, can an engine be restarted cold? Yes, but it’s not like you’re just turning a key and away we go. Plus, during this startup phase, the pilots would still need to be actively troubleshooting the failed engine issue, so you’re only adding workload to the crew.
If I understand your comments overall, you’re uneasy with a twin jet because of engine reliability, and would like additional engine for safety, and that is an excellent suggestion. In practice, though, twin engines jets have their engine manufacturers to thank.
GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce (among others) have done amazing work to make these marvels run reliably. Old turbojets like on the 707 were low powered and relatively unreliable, which is why having 4 engines was done for safety. A modern turbofan can run for thousands upon thousands of hours with proper maintenance. And if one fails, the other is completely capable of powering the aircraft through all flight phases, from takeoff to cruise to landing.
Could there be a dual engine failure? Absolutely. But the odds are exceeding slim, and would almost certainly require outside influence. The latest planes have ETOPS 370 certification, which means that if one of the two engines fails, they can still fly on that single engine for six hours.
Imagine flying London to Los Angeles, and losing an engine over New York — they could just complete the flight and still be able to fly for over an hour. Not that they would, but just an example of the margins we’re talking about.
Twin engines are remarkably safe and reliable, and the data over the last 30 years backs it up. The longest flight in the world is done by a twin engine jet, for example. (JFK to Singapore.) In fact, of the top 20 longest routes, 18 are done by twin jets, and two by quads.
TL;DR: they’re safe, bro! Get on the plane and go somewhere fun! Sorry for writing a novel.
Thank you! I will definitely be watching that tomorrow. Too drunk rn lol
Way ahead of you, buddy! Hockey game is on! lol
Not anymore. This was an old tri-jet. Once engines became reliable enough to increase ETOPS ratings (the time a plane can fly with an engine out) from 60 to now 240 minutes, and you could fly a 2-engine jet across the ocean on the same route as a four- or three-engine jet, it didn’t make sense to keep buying those with higher engine counts and the accompanying fuel usage required.
In turn, those older planes like the 747, DC-10, and MD-11, are generally turned into cargo aircraft for the remainder of their service life. They still have all the same airworthiness requirements needed to fly in US and other countries’ airspace.
This jet should have been able to take off with two of its three engines just fine, but I heard a rumor that the middle engine suffered a compressor stall and wasn’t running at full power. From the video it looks like the nose is up but the plane is descending due to lack of power. Even if the engine stall isn’t true, if the engine comes off the wing, as what seems to be the case here, it can critically damage the wing itself and stall it. See American Airlines 191 disaster in Chicago, for example.