Russian airplane passengers discuss the state of the engine
Posted Aug 22, 2018, 8:04 AM UTC
600145
101
Totally plausible given they are chill AF.
12
Unable to Control Altitude
Unable to Control Airspeed
Unable to Constrol heading
Kalitta Six Six, Other than that, everything A-OK.
6
That's a pretty crazy recording. Glad the dude pulled through. What a badass.
2
Hypoxia is intense.
2
[removed]
1
Nah fam, nobody wants a translation lol, why you wasting your time on a Saturday night 😂
-50
It’s Wednesday my dude
29
Maybe he's a time traveler
8
He's a fairly successful troll, judging by how many downvotes and pissed off responses he gets.
3
Oh shit I'm supposed to be at work!!! Fuck fuck fuck!
1
77
Thaks for showing the rest of the story!
17
I like how they sit there for at least 30 sec (maybe more given the breaks in the video) filming instead of trying to evacuate. That's some black mirror shit.
-9
Have you ever sat in the back of an airplane? It takes several minutes for the forward aisles to clear out so the people in back have room to stand up and get out. It takes even longer if idiots try to grab their stuff and take it with them instead of leaving it on the plane like they are supposed to during an evacuation.
16
Yes I know it takes time. The faa standard for a full evacuation is 90 sec. The last priority during an emergency would be taking video. How about assisting others and making sure no one is panicking or trying to grab their stuff?
-10
Is no problem, we have another engine, why you worry so much?
59
Which is true, btw. There's no reason to panic, unless the plane is already falling uncontrollably, for some reason. Even then, panicking will only make your body be found all covered up in your own shit.
40
An engine failure is a very manageable emergency. An engine fire is worse. The structure of the wing is generally aluminum, fire can compromise it. The fact that the fire keeps burning suggests that the fuel is leaking into the fire; if it were being pumped, the fire would go out pretty quickly when the pilot throttled down.
I think the Russians were remarkably calm, in a particularly Russian way. Russians tend to be good at coping with adversity.
35
Going through the History of Russia, the people in the region through the centuries. One conquering force after another, then when things seem to be in order and peace will reign, here come the Mongols, ok, done there, here come the Tsars, then here comes Lenin, then Stalin, then Hitler...
Yeah, the Russian people have seen some shit, so something like a little engine fire. Wake them when the wing comes off.
6
Fairly sure there's some magnesium burning under the cowl. Could be the compressor casing.
2
But isn't the fuel tank imbedded in the wing structure? How bad would it have to be for the fuel tank to explode?
1
The premise still applies, though. Unless you're the pilot, there's nothing you can do to stop the plane from falling, so oh well.
1
If I would be the person filming I would be scared. Not because of a damaged engine but an uncontained engine failure is always an option.
3
I hate to break it to you but that's what happens when you die. You shit and piss yourself. South park did a great episode on it.
3
If you die, you're going to soon be covered in your own shit no matter what.
1
reminds me of the duds that had an engine fire- they shut down the good engine by mistake and crashed just short of the runway. oops.
0
It is of the no worry, comrade. Engine be doing enough power to be making to scene of crash.
3
I mean isn't there a chance it explodes or some uncontrolled fire does critical damage to the wing?
2
My russian isnt that good; but I think they're talking about the pilot putin out the fire by stalin the plane.
56
Boooooooo.
19
Those flames are going to leave Marx.
14
[deleted]
3
That's Groucho Marx to you, Comrade
1
I'm guess your Marx in history weren't great, was ger many teachers in your school?
1
I want to tell you to get out, but those puns are too welcoming
8
Well stick around because as long as they're not Russian the pilot it should be a safe, Soviet, bumpy landing.
-5
They go on to say that the engine will cause the plane to start lenin to the left andropov.
8
Was on a flight with my dad around 1977, a twin turboprop passenger plane. We'd taken off and had reached cruising altitude when I noticed the port engine was leaking oil. A lot of oil. Elbowed my dad and showed him. My dad, who was still in the process of getting his pilot's license, waved at the stewardess. She came over. My dad said "That engine is leaking a lot of oil." She smiles and says "Oh, that's perfectly normal, don't worry a thing about it, I'm sure the pilots are aware of the situation." She then turns and practically sprints to the cockpit.
30 seconds later there is the announcement "Ahhh, this is your pilot speaking. We're ahhh going to be making an unscheduled stop in a few minutes. It may be bumpy ahhhh on the way down so please remain in your seats and keep your seat belts on for your safety." And then we did what had to be an emergency descent because it tooks us about five more minutes to land at a completely barren airport without even a semblance of a terminal building. They took some of our luggage off the plane so we could sit on it over in the grass under some trees. At some point they repaired the engine and we eventually got to Dallas.
36
Oh, that's perfectly normal
TBH, if someone told me that engine leaking fuel was normal I'd be pretty scared. Although if someone told me an engine is usually exploding I'd just be annoyed at them for being pedantic.
5
It's actually normal in helicopters. It wasn't comforting seeing oil all over the fuselage on my first ride though, I'll tell you that.
1
Actually a lot of times planes have to dump fuel in order to achieve maximum landing weight since they take off with extra fuel in case of emergencies
-6
I doubt that plane we were on had the capability of dumping fuel. It was a McDonnell Douglas twin turboprop, seated maybe 50 passengers. At any rate, we landed very quickly after they noted one engine was gushing oil.
9
Airliners now only fuel as needed vs costs, so if another area has higher fuel cost, and it's cheaper to fuel it an one, they'll fill it enough to get over there.
It's based on turn around time, cost of refueling and cost of heavier plane with fuel. They don't fly full tanks.
United even uses THINNER paper magazines to save fuel.
Airliners are saving a shitload of money by doing this, some airliner pilots are uncomfortable with the "reserve".
Military planes on the other hand, usually do because of their ever changing missions, makes it a safer bet.
2
achtually*
0
My Russian isn't great but I believe they are saying they the engine is missing a phalange
10
Phalange means armed Greek infantry or a bone in the body. Falange is the Spanish fascist party.
I think you meant flange.
3
But the engine is missing an armed Greek infantry.
11
you're goddamn right
4
[removed]
1
No, I think he said there's something wrong with the left phalange. It's clearly on the left side of the plane.
3
Oh my god! This plane does not even have a phalange!
3
Sounds like they are enjoying the diversion from normalcy
9
there's a reason divertido means fun in spanish
1
Wow people are being super calm about this, which incidentally is he correct, helpful response.
I feel like if I were on a flight here in North America there'd be a lot of "OH MY GOD WE'RE GUNNA DIE!"
7
"...hahaha..."
5
"lol the engine is on fire XD"
2
Reminds me of this story on Ellen by Leonardo DiCaprio (at 3m5s):
5
New russian aircraft telemtary - passenger video's the engine on fire, post's it on Reddit, pilot sees video of engine on fire.
5
Duh ... you not supposed to press the boost button that long ...
4
ITS A NEW LAP RECORD!
4
Everyday thing. nothing to see here.. :)
3
Dafuq
2
I would really struggle to keep my shit together if I saw that.
Or maybe I'd just sit quietly while my internal monologue screams in sheer terror, not sure.
2
Video is fast becoming the number one marketing channel for business owners.
2
Can an actual engineer weigh in on what's the likelihood of such engine failure causing a catastrophe, e.g. plane becoming uncontrollable or an explosion puncturing the cabin and causing a crash?
2
A fire like this is different from uncontained engine failure.
If the pilot kills the engine that is on fire the plane can fly safely on the other engine. If the fire goes out once the engine is killed the risk of anything else is low.
If, however, the fire continues to burn that risks more fire, an explosion, or weakening of the structure due to fire.
In short, small engine fire = NBD.
Fire won't go out = possibly BD.
Fire spreads = BD.
Engine goes "boom!" and its pieces go everywhere = BD.
4
There was just one recently in April where an engine exploded, shattering a window and a person was partially sucked out and died.
And here's a crash caused by catastrophic engine failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
So yeah, it happens.
2
The second example seems to be quite a different case. Seems to have been purely a structural malfunction.
3
Uncontained engine failures happen every now and then. In recent history there was an Air France A380 and two Southwest Airlines B737s.
From a "controlling the plane" perspective, things are mostly fine. Modern planes have automatic systems such as Thrust Asymmetry Compensation. Simply put, the plane's computers will apply rudder to counteract the torque from suddenly having more thrust on one side than the other (and a whole lot of drag from the now-dead engine). Even without that, pilots are trained to fly the plane with an engine out.
Theoretically, the engine casing is supposed to protect the plane in the event of a structural failure. They test this - interestingly including a test that involves firing dead chickens at engines with a cannon - and usually it works, but sometimes, when a titanium blade spinning at the speed of sound dislocates all of a sudden, the protective casing fails, and shrapnel gets sprayed at the fuselage.
In the case of the Southwest B737, this tragically caused a passenger's death, due to a woman being sucked out of the plane. However, this, too, generally doesn't mean that the plane is going to crash and burn. A punctured cabin means that the pilots will initiate a rapid, but controlled, descent, and level off at a safe altitude, and then land somewhere ASAP.
Tl;Dr: the plane itself is generally not in danger. In very rare cases, individual passengers have died.
2
Thanks, that's helpful. If an engine is on fire like this, what are the chances of the larger fuel storage tanks or lines catching fire thus causing an explosion?
1
AFAIK that has not happened to any modern passenger aircraft in flight, ever. The only time in recent history that comes to mind that a passenger plane exploded in the air was when MH17 was hit with an anti-aircraft missile over the Ukraine.
You can try searching avherald, which has a pretty comprehensive and very well researched list of accidents, incidents and crashes. You can filter by "crash" using the buttons at the top.
While looking at that list, keep in mind that in 2017 alone, there were 37 million commercial flights performed. That's just to put that list in perspective.
The bottom line is that things do go wrong, but with planes we have decades upon decades worth of design, policy and procedures improvements to make it as safe as possible. This means that today, planes don't crash because any one thing goes wrong. It's super rare because everything has to go wrong at the same time, and that's pretty rare. Even then, you'll notice that many of those crashes are actually crash landings, which are often survivable.
Also, twin-engine planes can fly with one engine. They're not going to fall out of the sky, they're just going to reduce altitude a little and burn a lot more fuel, which is why they'll find an airport to land at. And that's part of every flight plan, it's not left to chance. The flight crew and the plane's computers know where the nearest diversion airport is, and the flight path is planned to make sure that there's always one in range, even if an engine fails and there's a loss in pressure, causing the plane to descend to an altitude where it burns a lot more fuel. That holds true for overwater routes as well by the way.
Even with both engines out, they glide pretty well. If you've ever been on a plane, you've experienced this, probably without realizing it. When the plane begins its descent, the throttles are reduced to idle for the initial portion, and the plane glides down gently.
2
Cyka fucking blyat.
2
"Its literally on fire?"
"Yea its literally on fire."
"So we're just gonna keep flying?"
"No no no no were going in for a landing!"
....
....
....
"So this is your vacation?"
"Yep its my vacation."
"Nice vacation!"
The hero we need.
Ofc this always sparks from Russia. Crazy.
I love apathetic comedy. Both guys are probably thinking there is a small chance this is where i die.
"Turns it won't be the vodka, I'm mildly suprised."
Small....hmm
In mother Russia, we die like men.
di caprio had an engine on fire in russia and he felt like an idiot cause he was the only on panicking. if this was italians (like me) they would be crying for theyr mothers.
I love this.
A small correction: It wasn’t “Nice vacation”, it was “Have a good vacation!”,
Nice vacation works as literal translation, but doesn’t work contextually.
Youtube auto-translate has issues.
alternatively
"Have a nice vacation!" is was he said
And people wonder why Russians still travel by rail so much.
Because it's much more relaxing and spacious? You can sleep laying down on actual bedding and have the length of the entire train to stretch your legs (not even including stops at stations).
Seriously, the only reason people in the US don't travel by train is that passenger rail in the US was bought up, gutted, and dismantled decades ago. Amtrak is garbage.
We don't travel by rail long distance in Australia either, even though regional rail systems are run by the State. We have reliable airlines, that don't fall out of the sky though. Which is nice.
But Russian long range rail is pretty cozy.
I've traveled on a Russian train several times. Definitely won't do it again. Way too slow. A 2-hour flight turns into a 1.5 day trip, and once you're off the train you feel the rocking motion for the next 12 hours.
That's not really accurate. Since 2000 the US has had 18 commercial air incidents that have involved casualties, while Russia has only had 11 (excluding terrorism-related incidents in both cases).
I mean that's not really true. The car destroyed passenger rail in the US. This isn't like General Motors buying streetcars. Eisenhower built the interstates and people all had cars and they drove. That coupled with flights becoming cheaper and faster, spelled the end for passenger rail. I mean look at ocean liners.
And Amtrak isn't really garbage. The NE Corridor is super busy and profitable. Also back in the day, railroads ran both freight and passenger so they could prioritize the passenger trains over the freight consists. Amtrak isn't as lucky which leads to much more delays.
Which is what I was referring to. Once the automotive industry was destroying public transportation systems, freight began consolidating ownership of railways.
I still argue that Amtrak is garbage for the price. It seems to have this air of "luxurious travel" associated with it, which it doesn't live up to in any real way but the price and diner car. It's no competition for mass passenger-rail transit.
Yeah man, after a few 10-13 hour plane rides in the last few years I wish I could take a train instead. I would rather take a train for a few days then be in constant anxiety and feeling like im gonna throw up because I can't breath or something crazy happens. The last time i was on a flight a guy got so bored/drunk he started teasing and poking the guy in the seat in front of him. They got in a full on fistfight right next to me then were seated back in the same seats because the plane was full then they spent the next 5 hours shit talking each other for 10 minutes at a time. I'd like my own cabin from now on.
It’s also really expensive. It was cheaper and faster for me to fly somewhere than to take the train.
It's true that it can be. But many tickets are comparable or cheaper than flying. For overnight travel I completely prefer train.
Unless your train compartment is 95 degrees. Then it's a different story.