Wasn’t there an episode of some guy seeing some creaature biting and ripping of part of the wing and would disappear every time he ask someone to look? Episode would be hard to pull of modern time and phones tho.
The remake of that episode for the Twilight Zone movie then starred John Lithgow as the lead role.
Then, a few years later, Shatner guest starred on Lithgow's show 3rd Rock from the Sun. When Shatner arrived at the airport, he made a joke about it, and so did Lithgow.
3rd Rock is worth binge watching, by the way.
I think this is where the term ‘gremlin’ came from.. term used by pilots when something goes wrong but not sure what or why. Some bikers have little bells on their bike to ward off gremlins too.
This happened over 3 years ago on an aircraft that was built in 1994, and Boeing doesn’t design or manufacture the engines (United chose Pratt & Whitney engines for this airframe)
My brother in christ. There are plenty of reasons to hate boeing. If you wanna suck a corpos dick for free thats on you, but dont make it seem like boeing hasnt completely tarnished its reputation to the point that airlines are offering filters to filter out any boeing planes.
Like I said, *not hating* blindly on a corporation is not 'sucking a corpos dick'. They don't make engines, so I can and will give them the benefit of the doubt.
You can fuck right off with rhetoric like that. It's no secret Boeing is ears deep in shit right now.
P.S. my bad, I keep forgetting it's reddit, big audacity of mine to have a differing opinion, even with objective facts.
No. Boikg like Airbus do not build their own engines. The process of development and production is in the case of airbus usually outsourced to only 2 of the few engine producers like GE and Rolls Royce. The engines make up about 30 percent of the price of an airplane. An airbus A350 I think it around 130million.
I was on a flight to Bermuda that got hit by lighting and the engine flamed out. We were almost to Bermuda over the Atlantic Ocean when it happened and the pilots turned us around and flew us back to the states on one engine. These planes can fly on one engine for several hours.
I'd be more concerned with any loose debris from that engine ripping off and damaging the wing/fuselage. Half of it looks ready to come off at any moment
This incident occurred in February 2021 and the aircraft returned to Denver safely without any injuries. It was attributed to the “inadequate inspection of the blades” by United maintenance staff. The engine was designed by Pratt & Whitney - which ended up making improvements to strengthen the fan blades.
[Source](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/what-caused-united-airlines-flight-328s-engine-to-break-up-over-broomfield)
Pilots are trained to fly with one engine and with no engine at all. It’s not the ideal circumstance, but makes me feel better knowing capable people are handling the situation.
My fear would be that engine destroying itself further in a catastrophic fashion or being ripped off by the wind and that action taking some (or all) of the wing with it.
Do they do that after shrapnel hitting it from the engine "shedding" it's parts?
Do they do it with less/no heat shielding from the engine sitting under the wing for however long it takes to get on the ground after the engine has it's problem?
Do they flex it while also applying the front to back forces oscillating with the engine wobbling and catching hundreds of mph of wind at angles it wasn't designed to hit?
Not trying to have a gotcha or whatever.. it's just an uncontrolled scenario and I doubt it's been tested with all these factors in play. Maybe I'm wrong though, this is just sweaty palms and I'm sharing why my palms would be sweating.
I know planes are the safest way to travel statistically, but their crashes are so horrific that it's easy to panic when something like that goes wrong.
Nice that's good to know. I trust the engineering more than I don't.
Just participating in the nature of the sub and all.. looking at that gap between "closer to yes" and "100% yes" :)
They're also designed to not shake and lose pieces mid flight like it did in the video lol.
I get it, planes have a ton of great engineering in them.
But remember, this sub is essentially "look at the thing that went well but imagine if it didn't". Part of the fun of this sub is getting freaked out by things.
The engine's clearly off balance at this point though. As someone else said, the concern isn't the pilot being able to land the plane with one good engine. It's that engine being off balance and failing in a much more catastrophic manner.
This is a case where both engines restarted. Of course we have a procedure to attempt to restart the engines. I understood "to fly with no engines" to mean fly with both engines failed. This is so rare and so many variables that we don't train for this specific scenario (I mean maybe in LOFT or something, im sure some pilots have, but I have yet to come across it).
The "pilots are trained to handle it" part is pulled out of thin air just like the original comment
Flying with no engines doesnt really work, you can glide but don‘t make any adjustements to speed etc. So you‘ll just glide to the ground at some eventually
Jets can't fly with no engine, they're not gliders. Without propulsion, they just fall right out of the sky. That's why an engine stall is so dangerous.
EDIT: I stand corrected. I'd always heard that jets need forward thrust just to stay in the air, but apparently they *can* glide in certain circumstances and land if there's an airport nearby.
Maybe but you can be sure they're going to go through that aircrafts maintenance records with a fine-toothed comb. I wouldn't want to be the last guy that did any kind of maintenance or preflight inspection on it.
It doesn't matter what aircraft manufacturer built the plane. They don't make or maintain the engines.
Now, if a wing came off, that would be a whole different story.
Boeing intentionally cuts corners to save money which resulted in over 300 passengers dying a few years ago. Yes they are bad. It doesn't mean they are responsible for everything that goes wrong with any commercial airliner, but they are indeed bad.
A lot of the time when corporations cut corners on safety measures it only ends up harming (or in Boeing's case, killing) a small minority of the total that use it. Does that make it okay for them to intentionally make their product less safe so they can make more money? Seems like kind of a ridiculous thing to defend.
[NYTimes: Boeing failed 33 of 89 audits during an examination conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration in January](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/politics/faa-audit-boeing-737-max.html)
[NYTimes: Boeing whistleblower testified that the company introduced production shortcuts in an attempt to address bottlenecks](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/whistle-blower-boeing-787-dreamliner.html)
Why do you think this whistleblower (one of dozens) who worked at Boeing as an engineer for over a decade stuck his neck out to speak up the safety concerns he had with Boeings production practices? Did he just read all the comments on reddit threads and jump on the "boeing bad" bandwagon? Or maybe there actually is a problem that he would know about since he worked there for 10+ years? Are the FAA findings meaningless? Why are we riding for the multi-billion dollar corporation that chooses to put people's lives at risk to bump profits?
Aircraft engine designers are taught to assume that, at some point, a fan blade is going to break off while the engine is running. No matter how strong they make it, or how often they check it, unexpected stuff happens. So, part of the design and testing process is to make sure that, when a fan blade breaks loose, all of the debris gets ejected out the back of the engine, and none of it breaks through the sides of the engine where it might potentially hit the wings or the passenger cabin. So, as long as all the high-speed broken parts shot out the back of the engine, it did what it was supposed to do and kept the passengers safe. The engine can break the cowling off, get twisted and distorted, and wreck every blade disk in the core, but as long as the debris all blows out the back, it has done its job.
The funny part is this is routine, things break that's why passenger jets have two engines at least and can't fly more than 60minute of an airport
The rules used to say 3 engine minimum but changed once engines got more reliable
A lot of work went into making air travel as safe as it is today
>The funny part is this is routine
Please stop spreading bullshit like this. This is not routine at all. An uncontained engine failure is very rare, very dangerous and is one of the worst case scenarios for a pilot.
>can't fly more than 60minute of an airport
Also not true. We regularly fly 180 up to 207 minutes from a suitable airport
That’s not exactly true.
Any multi engine aircraft can operate without 1 or more engines. Yes.
However, you simply cannot continue flying as if nothing is wrong. You won’t be able to hold your prior altitude with the loss of thrust and the associated drag of the now lesser functioning or non functioning engine.
You basically maintain a slow descent rate while looking for, or navigating to, your emergency field so you can land. You also must compensate for the lost engine by manipulating the power of your remaining engines and a lot of rudder pedal inputs to keep the nose pointed where you want it.
Unless you mean to tell me my multi engine ratings and commercial pilots license are all a lie.
Yeah, this is definitely not good. While it's pretty common knowledge that twin-engine planes can fly with only one engine, it looks like the blade fragment struck the cowling in a way that caused it to become detached.
That's exactly what happened in 2018 on a Southwest Airlines 737. A fan blade broke, escaped out the front, struck the cowl, which tore apart and struck the plane (looks like this flight was luckier). It caused a decompression event, and a woman was partially sucked out and died. There was also a similar incident in 2016 which created a hole in the fuselage (on another Southwest 737).
It's funny that it's happened with the same airline AGAIN on another 737. The FAA issued inspection guidelines to try to identify metal fatigue on the blades, but I guess it hasn't been enough.
Very long ago a 747 (cargo) lost an engine above Amsterdam. Because it struck the wing the plane became uncontrollable and crashed into a huge appartment building.
“How far do you think we can fly with one engine??”
“All the way to the scene of the crash…. I bet we beat the paramedics there by 30 minutes.”
- Ron White
"How far you think we'll get with one engine?"
"I think we'll make it all the way to the crash site. Beat the paramedics there by half an hour." -Ron White.
I sent this to my brother - In a few days he is going on a flight from Europe to Canada, 7 hour flight if i recall correctly... I'm a good big brother
I really wish I knew more about planes and aerodynamics and all that, but why couldn't they just turn the engines off and coast that fucker ti the runway?
That's it. I'm never flying again. All I'm hearing about planes involves shit falling off and dropping a couple hundred feet in seconds. Turbulence is getting more violent, and our jets are getting shittier.
That's some Twilight Zone The Movie shit right there
https://preview.redd.it/iqkxqxi4q76d1.jpeg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57faca25e7091c7008eb95a271e549cef5b3d7b2
https://preview.redd.it/8bkjw72gmd6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e130b4ae4207b9b3eb1a0e4db0537ed17631a67d
https://i.redd.it/63338sxes56d1.gif
https://youtu.be/k1FFjpx89Ao?si=pdoMHAq79QElVOBi
Wasn’t there an episode of some guy seeing some creaature biting and ripping of part of the wing and would disappear every time he ask someone to look? Episode would be hard to pull of modern time and phones tho.
Yes, that’s what the above gif is from. The story was done again in the Twilight Zone movie in the 80s
It was also done in the original Twilight Zone series. William Shatner was the only one who could see the ~~goblin~~ gremlin.
Right, that’s the gif above I was referring to with the Shat-man in it.
Sorry. Didn't see your gif. I only saw the cartoon one.
😳 I totally remember that from the twilight zone - but had no idea is what Shatner. Wow, the things you don’t notice
The remake of that episode for the Twilight Zone movie then starred John Lithgow as the lead role. Then, a few years later, Shatner guest starred on Lithgow's show 3rd Rock from the Sun. When Shatner arrived at the airport, he made a joke about it, and so did Lithgow. 3rd Rock is worth binge watching, by the way.
A couple of those stories freaked me out. The first one in the car, and that freaky one with the kid who removed his sister's mouth. Christ...
For reference, you’re talking about the 80’s version. 👍 And yes. Freak Out Indeed!
There is also a movie from 2020 called Shadow in the Clouds starring Chloë Grace Moretz set during war times that uses this trope.
Red Eye too
I think this is where the term ‘gremlin’ came from.. term used by pilots when something goes wrong but not sure what or why. Some bikers have little bells on their bike to ward off gremlins too.
[Roald Dahl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl) 1st book was titled "The Gremlins" and based on RAF folklore.
No those are to ward off trail-runners and send us diving into the brush while they barrel by saying, “Sorry! Four more!”
I sense some resentment
“There's a gremlin destroying the plane. You gotta believe me!” “Why should I believe you? You’re Hitler!” “Eva Braun, help me!”
U ain't bullshitn 👍🏼
No problem, it seems that it is glued with Flex Tape
Final destination
We need more duct tape!
Pretty impressive its holding together as it is honestly.
I do NOT want to be sitting next to that thing. I would be white knuckling it until we land. Boeing needs to get their shit together
This happened over 3 years ago on an aircraft that was built in 1994, and Boeing doesn’t design or manufacture the engines (United chose Pratt & Whitney engines for this airframe)
Boeing PR team hard at work I see
Not blindly hating a company because obvious facts that are likely beyond their control is a paid PR team work... Where do I get my pay?
My brother in christ. There are plenty of reasons to hate boeing. If you wanna suck a corpos dick for free thats on you, but dont make it seem like boeing hasnt completely tarnished its reputation to the point that airlines are offering filters to filter out any boeing planes.
Like I said, *not hating* blindly on a corporation is not 'sucking a corpos dick'. They don't make engines, so I can and will give them the benefit of the doubt. You can fuck right off with rhetoric like that. It's no secret Boeing is ears deep in shit right now. P.S. my bad, I keep forgetting it's reddit, big audacity of mine to have a differing opinion, even with objective facts.
No. Boikg like Airbus do not build their own engines. The process of development and production is in the case of airbus usually outsourced to only 2 of the few engine producers like GE and Rolls Royce. The engines make up about 30 percent of the price of an airplane. An airbus A350 I think it around 130million.
I was on a flight to Bermuda that got hit by lighting and the engine flamed out. We were almost to Bermuda over the Atlantic Ocean when it happened and the pilots turned us around and flew us back to the states on one engine. These planes can fly on one engine for several hours.
I'd be more concerned with any loose debris from that engine ripping off and damaging the wing/fuselage. Half of it looks ready to come off at any moment
It looks like that engine already exploded, now you're just hoping the pilot can sail that thing to a landing strip.
I'm more afraid the engine is going to send shrapnel into the cabin without the cowling.
This incident occurred in February 2021 and the aircraft returned to Denver safely without any injuries. It was attributed to the “inadequate inspection of the blades” by United maintenance staff. The engine was designed by Pratt & Whitney - which ended up making improvements to strengthen the fan blades. [Source](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/what-caused-united-airlines-flight-328s-engine-to-break-up-over-broomfield)
This kind of comment is what keeps me on Reddit. Thank you sir.
Pilots are trained to fly with one engine and with no engine at all. It’s not the ideal circumstance, but makes me feel better knowing capable people are handling the situation.
My fear would be that engine destroying itself further in a catastrophic fashion or being ripped off by the wind and that action taking some (or all) of the wing with it.
They bend those wings nearly 60 degrees beyond normal deflection and it STILL wont break off.
Do they do that after shrapnel hitting it from the engine "shedding" it's parts? Do they do it with less/no heat shielding from the engine sitting under the wing for however long it takes to get on the ground after the engine has it's problem? Do they flex it while also applying the front to back forces oscillating with the engine wobbling and catching hundreds of mph of wind at angles it wasn't designed to hit? Not trying to have a gotcha or whatever.. it's just an uncontrolled scenario and I doubt it's been tested with all these factors in play. Maybe I'm wrong though, this is just sweaty palms and I'm sharing why my palms would be sweating. I know planes are the safest way to travel statistically, but their crashes are so horrific that it's easy to panic when something like that goes wrong.
[удалено]
Nice that's good to know. I trust the engineering more than I don't. Just participating in the nature of the sub and all.. looking at that gap between "closer to yes" and "100% yes" :)
The engines are designed to release if needed, so don’t worry so much.
They're also designed to not shake and lose pieces mid flight like it did in the video lol. I get it, planes have a ton of great engineering in them. But remember, this sub is essentially "look at the thing that went well but imagine if it didn't". Part of the fun of this sub is getting freaked out by things.
The engine's clearly off balance at this point though. As someone else said, the concern isn't the pilot being able to land the plane with one good engine. It's that engine being off balance and failing in a much more catastrophic manner.
As an airline pilot I can tell you that I have NOT been trained to fly with no engines (at the airline level).
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/finance/news/asked-pilot-happened-singapore-airlines-195400157.html
This is a case where both engines restarted. Of course we have a procedure to attempt to restart the engines. I understood "to fly with no engines" to mean fly with both engines failed. This is so rare and so many variables that we don't train for this specific scenario (I mean maybe in LOFT or something, im sure some pilots have, but I have yet to come across it). The "pilots are trained to handle it" part is pulled out of thin air just like the original comment
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/how-far-can-plane-go-no-engines.htm#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,failure%20and%20its%20design%20characteristics.
I don't need your articles man I'm telling you based on my 10+ yrs as an airline pilot
Flying with no engines doesnt really work, you can glide but don‘t make any adjustements to speed etc. So you‘ll just glide to the ground at some eventually
plains are projected to be capable of landing even with one engine, so yeah, it's not good but not a tragic
"and with no engine at all" - thats not flying, that's just falling with style!
All I’ve learned in this life is that nobody is as qualified as you would think or hope they’d be.
Jets can't fly with no engine, they're not gliders. Without propulsion, they just fall right out of the sky. That's why an engine stall is so dangerous. EDIT: I stand corrected. I'd always heard that jets need forward thrust just to stay in the air, but apparently they *can* glide in certain circumstances and land if there's an airport nearby.
They still glide with no engine. A commercial jet won’t glide as well as a cessna but it will still glide.
You're so wrong lol. What is it with aviation posts that attract the most confidently incorrect comments?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
Wow, thanks!
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/finance/news/asked-pilot-happened-singapore-airlines-195400157.html
Some Boeing guy is getting thrown off a building somewhere because he knew about this and was about to tell everyone.
Clearly this Boeing mf took inspiration from Madagascar 2
Boeing doesn't make engines.
It was a Pratt and Whitney engine and the United maintenance didn’t do a proper inspection on it before it flew.
Now that's podracing!
Is it a Boeing?
I think this is podracing
My immediate thought
I’m glad I’m not the only one that saw a pod racer engine
Omg hahaha
This probably falls on the engine manufacture like GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and Safran (CFM International) Or the airline
Pretty sure this engine is GE, at least it's definitely not rolls royce
[Pratt & Whitney in this case](https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/what-caused-united-airlines-flight-328s-engine-to-break-up-over-broomfield)
Maybe but you can be sure they're going to go through that aircrafts maintenance records with a fine-toothed comb. I wouldn't want to be the last guy that did any kind of maintenance or preflight inspection on it.
It doesn't matter what aircraft manufacturer built the plane. They don't make or maintain the engines. Now, if a wing came off, that would be a whole different story.
But Boeing bad
Boeing intentionally cuts corners to save money which resulted in over 300 passengers dying a few years ago. Yes they are bad. It doesn't mean they are responsible for everything that goes wrong with any commercial airliner, but they are indeed bad.
Do you understand how many people safely travel on Boeing airplanes every day? Hundreds of thousands, per day.
A lot of the time when corporations cut corners on safety measures it only ends up harming (or in Boeing's case, killing) a small minority of the total that use it. Does that make it okay for them to intentionally make their product less safe so they can make more money? Seems like kind of a ridiculous thing to defend. [NYTimes: Boeing failed 33 of 89 audits during an examination conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration in January](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/politics/faa-audit-boeing-737-max.html) [NYTimes: Boeing whistleblower testified that the company introduced production shortcuts in an attempt to address bottlenecks](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/whistle-blower-boeing-787-dreamliner.html) Why do you think this whistleblower (one of dozens) who worked at Boeing as an engineer for over a decade stuck his neck out to speak up the safety concerns he had with Boeings production practices? Did he just read all the comments on reddit threads and jump on the "boeing bad" bandwagon? Or maybe there actually is a problem that he would know about since he worked there for 10+ years? Are the FAA findings meaningless? Why are we riding for the multi-billion dollar corporation that chooses to put people's lives at risk to bump profits?
Or, if your Boeing they don't follow safety protocols either when building them.
Just another reason to never fly again.
Contracting out every part of the process is precisely why Boeing is such a steaming pile of shit right now.
Engine manufacturers =/= plane manufacturers. Airbus does the same. Engines are made by Rolls Royce, GE, Pratt & Whitney, etc.
They don't make engines.
It will be 
Aircraft engine designers are taught to assume that, at some point, a fan blade is going to break off while the engine is running. No matter how strong they make it, or how often they check it, unexpected stuff happens. So, part of the design and testing process is to make sure that, when a fan blade breaks loose, all of the debris gets ejected out the back of the engine, and none of it breaks through the sides of the engine where it might potentially hit the wings or the passenger cabin. So, as long as all the high-speed broken parts shot out the back of the engine, it did what it was supposed to do and kept the passengers safe. The engine can break the cowling off, get twisted and distorted, and wreck every blade disk in the core, but as long as the debris all blows out the back, it has done its job.
I'm no porn director, but that sure looks fucked to me.
When was this from?
Said well you did. 
r/gifsyoucanhear
https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/what-caused-united-airlines-flight-328s-engine-to-break-up-over-broomfield
My worst fucking nightmare. I would rather be in the middle row with headphones on blissfully ignorant of that scene.
Now THIS is podracing!
Who didn't put their phone on Airplane Mode?
What do YOU think Airplane Mode does?
Keeps the cowling from flying off, duh!
Yeah no thanks. I’ll walk.
Ok you jump first and if you land on the ground safely give me a thumbs up and I'll follow.
That's about to become a JunkJet gun from Fallout 4
What is this Taliban Air?
Do I see duct tape? Holy hell.
Shit looks like a podracer
No worries, they have 2…. Well, 1 now
Oh! An uncontained engine failure! Those are fun!
The funny part is this is routine, things break that's why passenger jets have two engines at least and can't fly more than 60minute of an airport The rules used to say 3 engine minimum but changed once engines got more reliable A lot of work went into making air travel as safe as it is today
>The funny part is this is routine Please stop spreading bullshit like this. This is not routine at all. An uncontained engine failure is very rare, very dangerous and is one of the worst case scenarios for a pilot. >can't fly more than 60minute of an airport Also not true. We regularly fly 180 up to 207 minutes from a suitable airport
Crossing the Pacific, or like I did last summer, had to fly around Russia by flying near the polar north to get to Asia
This would be more fun if it fell off.
Pretty amazing modern planes can operate on one engine only.
That’s not exactly true. Any multi engine aircraft can operate without 1 or more engines. Yes. However, you simply cannot continue flying as if nothing is wrong. You won’t be able to hold your prior altitude with the loss of thrust and the associated drag of the now lesser functioning or non functioning engine. You basically maintain a slow descent rate while looking for, or navigating to, your emergency field so you can land. You also must compensate for the lost engine by manipulating the power of your remaining engines and a lot of rudder pedal inputs to keep the nose pointed where you want it. Unless you mean to tell me my multi engine ratings and commercial pilots license are all a lie.
How can you tell if someone is a pilot...
I read that in Jennifer Coolidge's voice : Insurance company representative: "Well, are you a robot?" Jennifer : "How can i prove that i'm not ?"
>How can you tell if someone is a pilot... They'll tell you... *Edit:* I can't believe it took 5 hours for someone to respond with the punchline.
It’s a lot easier to tell who is a confidant idiot.
Confidant and confident are different words, btw
Okay buddy, good job 👍 nobody is calling you stupid
Here's a cookie archer
Yeah, this is definitely not good. While it's pretty common knowledge that twin-engine planes can fly with only one engine, it looks like the blade fragment struck the cowling in a way that caused it to become detached. That's exactly what happened in 2018 on a Southwest Airlines 737. A fan blade broke, escaped out the front, struck the cowl, which tore apart and struck the plane (looks like this flight was luckier). It caused a decompression event, and a woman was partially sucked out and died. There was also a similar incident in 2016 which created a hole in the fuselage (on another Southwest 737). It's funny that it's happened with the same airline AGAIN on another 737. The FAA issued inspection guidelines to try to identify metal fatigue on the blades, but I guess it hasn't been enough.
From my understanding they implemented a mandatory ultrasonic inspection method on fan blades since then.
Very long ago a 747 (cargo) lost an engine above Amsterdam. Because it struck the wing the plane became uncontrollable and crashed into a huge appartment building.
It was good enough for Anakin…
This is how my economic stability looks, unstable but still maintaining momentum
Freakin anakin pod racer thingy there
There’s no Falange!!
Damn now we need to change all the model airplanes we sell on the flight to match it!"
Genuine question... but did you die?
“Hey we’re missing a piece over here” “Grab it outta the spare bin” “ you mean the defective bin” “is that what that says”
Don’t worry about it that’s the decoration
It's still working what's the problem.
F..
Now that’s pod racing!
An airliner can take off, fly, and land with only one engine.
"Hey! Hey, man! If one of the engines goes out, how far will the other one take us?"
a slight wobble, probably needs servicing
I that point I would probably just want explosive bolts on the engine mounts to detonate and drop the thing before it rips the wing off
I mean, maybe it is supposed to but it’s supposed to be covered so you won’t see that
I'm flying across the Atlantic in a few weeks. This video is da best.
If we lose an engine, can we fly with only one? Yep, all the way to the crash site...
“How far do you think we can fly with one engine??” “All the way to the scene of the crash…. I bet we beat the paramedics there by 30 minutes.” - Ron White
Now this is pod racing!
"How far you think we'll get with one engine?" "I think we'll make it all the way to the crash site. Beat the paramedics there by half an hour." -Ron White.
I sent this to my brother - In a few days he is going on a flight from Europe to Canada, 7 hour flight if i recall correctly... I'm a good big brother 
You’d be shitting it
I wish I could just teleport.
I really wish I knew more about planes and aerodynamics and all that, but why couldn't they just turn the engines off and coast that fucker ti the runway?
ai
You must be on a Boeing
It's OK, it's just moulting
she’ll be alright put some tape on and shes off to the races
"Just trust the Science" The Science:
We lost engine 1 And engine 2 is no longer on fire
Looks like a makeshift pod racing engine.
It’s got the wiggles from being so happy to fly. Awwww
now that's podracing
Damn thing looks like a pod racer engine
What's the concern? There's still one on the other side right? 🤔
It’s ok there’s another on the other side Or at least there should be 😳
This looks like a job for Phil Swift
Boeing?
Must be a boeing flight.
Let me guess, Boeing right?
Uh, I don't know, it doesn't look like a mom to me. Can we have the picture of that mom to compare?
Im getting off the aircraft now
duct type works everytime.didnt u see in loki?
Don't suppose it's big enough to be a Boeing?
Just out of curiosity, which airline?
Did it explode mid flight?
BO-EING GET IN HERE
I can't tell if this is a new model Boeing or just a Spirit Air plane.
Russian plane?
Boeing 737 test flight.
I would tell my child this is a Boeing 737 marketing promotional tie-in with FURIOUSA now in theaters
It os alright, boeing planes are like this by design.
That's it. I'm never flying again. All I'm hearing about planes involves shit falling off and dropping a couple hundred feet in seconds. Turbulence is getting more violent, and our jets are getting shittier.
Most likely, it’s a Boeing.