[defrost]

I've spent a few million line kilometres in a variety of airframes and understand that "designed to operate" through an event is not the same as "actually survives" that event.

There are many factors at play and things are complicated by unexpected failures.

Thank you for the video that demonstrates a pilot aware in advance of planned "engine failure" can cope with such an event in scheduled test conditions.

[Symbiote]

How does sitting in a plane more than average give you more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators?

[defrost]

Pilots, aircraft engineers, and safety regulators also sit in aircraft.

The phrase "line kilometres" might indicate a smidgeon of aviation industry adjacency to some.

EDIT: Above and below comments appear to be low grade random sniping in bad faith.

There's a failure to address content and specifics and a straw assertion about "more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators", a claim that was never made.

At best I have the same insights as anyone that worked with 20 airframes for a few decades and staged them about the globe in that time.

EDIT2: Symbiote has deleted their problematic reply below that the first edit was made in response to. The michaelt reply came after the reply by Symbiote and is moot, all my statements are here, undeleted and unredacted.

[michaelt]

If you claim to be an aircraft engineer, professional pilot, or safety regulator - say so.

Everyone in the formula 1 subreddit uses jargon, none of them are F1 drivers.

[Symbiote]

I can reinstate the reply if you like, but michaelt made the same point moments after I did, and I preferred his "jargon" rather than my "fancy vocabulary".

[defrost]

I'd prefer if you addressed the content of my two comments above your https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44257232 and explain which part caused you to imply I believe myself to have "more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators".

[foldr]

We know that twin-engined airliners can successfully take off on one engine. It happens from time to time. E.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna179267

[defrost]

At no point did I claim that multiple engine aircraft cannot complete a take off on a single engine.

The statement I made:

> Aircraft can land (in right circumstances) by gliding in sans power .. the same cannot be said for take offs.

is about having _no_ thrust power during take off.

The other statement I made acknowledged that test pilots in planned and scheduled clear weather conditions often test aircraft with mock engine failures, then pointed out that this is very different to an unexpected failure during non test flights.

Yes, sometimes these things work out alright (as per your example), other times not so much.

[foldr]

You did challenge the claim that they could complete take off on a single engine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44256705

[defrost]

Not at all.

Landing sans power is landing with no thrust (no functioning engine).

Completing a take off with no thrust isn't possible unless the craft is a glider, a hot balloon, or a ballistic launch .. taking off with a single engine is not "taking off sans power".