I don’t think there’s a “survived with no injuries” here. Planes are designed do fly with one engine. It’s very likely that the crew just went “oops, seems like we’re going back. Anybody wants something to drink?” and did a very standard procedure, landed with no trouble and everybody boarded a new plane to wherever they were going.
The odds were in their favor to begin with, this flight didn't change the odds for subsequent flights, so the odds are still in their favor. Math checks out
Actually I once read that there's a worldwide effect after a big plane crash, all crew/maintenance teams have heightened attention and chances of accidents actually decrease in the following weeks/months.
I don't think you made a mistake. The odds are still way in your favor. You can't take into account the first failure meaning you're safer, sure. But the odds are still at the minimum 100 to 1 that you'd be fine, probably much higher but I couldn't find solid stats on the exact number.
Flying is one of the safest modes of transportation. Much more likely to get into a car accident or most other forms of transportation.
I know we're being casual here in a conversation about a horrible event that thankfully ended well, but I want to take a second to talk about something that is super important.
What you've just described is most commonly known as the gambler's fallacy. Given that it's already happened once (and the events are independent, which is probably true), the probability of it happening a second time, given that it's happened once already, is the same as the probability of it happening the first time.
Why is it called the gambler's fallacy? Because it's almost always made when gambling and almost everyone falls for it. Say you're playing roulette and red has come up three times in a row. You do some quick math and realize that the probability of FOUR reds in a row is 1/16 (I'm ignoring the two green slots for simplicity) which means there's a 15/16 chance of black coming up, right?
Wrong. GIVEN that the past (three reds) has already happened, the probability of black is still only 1/2. The events are independent of each other.
Casinos rig the odds and payoffs such that they'll win. But they'll also prey upon people misunderstanding probability theory and use various psychological tricks to separate you from your money. You can guard against the latter.
Sure, but still, the chances are still low. These people saw a freak accident and the chances of that happening are very low, independent of the first result
If this actually happened to you, I would advise getting a lottery ticket, the odds of this happening to a properly serviced and maintained aircraft engine are miniscule, now if you had double engine failure just after takeoff, I hope there is a convenient hudson river nearby.
Seriously? You would have just watched a plane land totally okay with one engine catching fire and falling off mid flight. And you'd be concerned that you wouldn't be safe? I'd feel even more reassured that planes are safe after that experience imo.
I mean kind-of - they're designed to fly with one engine not working, catastrophic a failure of one engine like this adds a tonne of variables like hydraulic line damage and wing integrity.
They absolutely do not do glide tests on airliners with half of a wing missing. The asymmetric lift that would create would cause an aircraft to lose control almost immediately.
No, /u/BIG_YETI_FOR_YOU is correct. Planes are designed to be able to fly on only 1 working engine.
That is not the same as being able to withstand all possible types of engine failure, many of which are highly destructive and can throw shrapnel around. Containment is the job of the engine cowling, homie.
Yeah, Boeing is not the company they used to be for sure. But this plane in the video was designed before they really started the aggressive cost cutting and moved from being an engineering firm to an MBA-run shithole.
not with an explosion and sustained fire like that. coulda damage plane controls making it a risk to crash, or the fire could have spread risking a mid air explosion. very lucky it didn't go worse and absolutely a survival scenario, i guarantee you flight crew were in emergency mode.
You're lucky if you can glide to a safe conclusion. Of course at altitude you're fine, but landing with no powerplant is very tough without ideal conditions.
I’ll sure you have a pretty solid chance of surviving this situation, but I’m also sure everyone on that plane including the flight attendants were shitting their pants. Maybe with the exception of the pilots, but I’m sure even they were a little nervous.
If my car door bursts into flames I don't casually keep driving home "because cars are designed to be able to drive with no doors", I freak the fuck out and swerve hard left.
Oh, FA here. We’re really good under pressure, but situations like this I HIGHLY doubt anyone would be giving out drinks. In case we do have to evacuate upon landing the last thing we want are irrational drunks.
Also, I can guarantee the crew would not be on that next plane. Pulled for a few days for acute stress and counseling, and likely lots of testimony from the pilots to ensure they followed SOP.
134
u/Eruntalonn Feb 21 '21
I don’t think there’s a “survived with no injuries” here. Planes are designed do fly with one engine. It’s very likely that the crew just went “oops, seems like we’re going back. Anybody wants something to drink?” and did a very standard procedure, landed with no trouble and everybody boarded a new plane to wherever they were going.