This is another article that claimed a jet engine burst into flames, when all that happened was an engine surge. The engine didn't catch fire, the engine did the jet version of a backfire, and only once during the takeoff roll.
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
314 points (93.9% liked)
News
23297 readers
3699 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thank you for reading the article and educating us. The thumbnail image looks like the plane is about to disintegrate!
Whatever you say, John Boeing
But but but muh clicks! Muh ad revenue!! Who the hell cares about my affect on society!? I need muh clicks!
completed an approximately 90-minute holding pattern before safely returning to and landing in Makassar.
Lol wtf!? I get that it was past the point of no return and had to commit to take off but a 90 min wait to land again seems insane.
Plane was not on fire. Passengers were in no immediate danger. Its safer to keep flying and prepare than make a hasty landing for no reason.
Apparently the engine wasn't on fire either, falsely reported according to others here
Landing overweight can be even more dangerous. The engine was shut down and they can fly just fine on 3 engines.
My guess is that they wanted the plane to use up most of the fuel before attempting the landing. As long as the plane is flying, the speed of the plane adds a level of safety to the fire. Once the plane lands and slows down, that fire would start affecting the rest of the wing much more, but there can't be a big kaboom anymore if the fuel tanks are empty.
Long distance 747 flighs usually take off above the maximum landng weight. They need to get rid of the fuel before landing, but the 400 has the ability to dump fuel.
The engine wasn't on fire. The engine had a surge on takeoff. They would have shut the engine off as it might have been damaged, but the plane was not on fire. They would have landed much sooner if it was.
Many articles describe engine surges with language that, while not technically a lie, is written to make readers conclude that the airplane is actually on fire.
This guy airplanes. Thanks for the info kind person!
747s are designed to lose an engine in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and still be able to return to land safely. Literally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
90m isn't ideal, but perfectly fine.
ETOPS is not required for 747s. Being a 4 engine plane it can run fine with him three. So an engine failure is not an actual emergency although you will still need to land cause of the reduced performance running with three engines.
It's weird they designed it to lose an engine. They should have designed it not to lose an engine. That would have been better.
(((THEY))) don't want that, though!!!!
Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim
Can we have other internet infrastructure built that way too?
Well, we have already.
The Internet was designed to be resilient against nuclear war. Most protocols are resilient, it's just been the last few years that some companies abused their positions (Cloudflare, Google) and it also came to light, that some protocols have been designed with a tad too much trust (BGP, SMTP).
I am aware.. I meant more so with the recent trends.. We have p2p ffs. So its not the tech its how its being built.
view more: next ›