Yes. But then it's used up its safety margin. So your logic works for why you shouldn't worry when the plane is in perfectly good working order and has two working engines. Your logic is completely idiotic for when one engine has failed.
> , and glide with none
Not very far, it can't! About 150 km from cruising altitude. This plane was still climbing out of its departure airport. Do you remember just how far US Airways 1549 got to comfortably glide after losing power during its ascent? Give me a break.
> And even if they were flying over the pacific, planes are required to be within a certain distance of land at all times. Probably enough to get to an airport.
The Boeing 777 can be ETOPS-330! 330 minutes at one-engine speed from a diversion airport. That's pretty far! Sure, on one engine they'd be fine, but you're a moron for ridiculing them for having shaved away their safety margin.
> Edit: I don’t get the downvotes. It’s true.
"It's true"? "It" is a bunch of lazy opinionated crap that's meant to ridicule someone for being worried when a very safe mode of transportation just shaved away a gigantic part of its safety margin.
Yes. But then it's used up its safety margin. So your logic works for why you shouldn't worry when the plane is in perfectly good working order and has two working engines. Your logic is completely idiotic for when one engine has failed.
> , and glide with none
Not very far, it can't! About 150 km from cruising altitude. This plane was still climbing out of its departure airport. Do you remember just how far US Airways 1549 got to comfortably glide after losing power during its ascent? Give me a break.
> unless it blew up and took out a wing
How's debris in the wing (possibly in the fuel tank) for ya? https://theairlinewebsite.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/152844...
> And even if they were flying over the pacific, planes are required to be within a certain distance of land at all times. Probably enough to get to an airport.
The Boeing 777 can be ETOPS-330! 330 minutes at one-engine speed from a diversion airport. That's pretty far! Sure, on one engine they'd be fine, but you're a moron for ridiculing them for having shaved away their safety margin.
> Edit: I don’t get the downvotes. It’s true.
"It's true"? "It" is a bunch of lazy opinionated crap that's meant to ridicule someone for being worried when a very safe mode of transportation just shaved away a gigantic part of its safety margin.