Original Post by Commander Taco
Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.
BTW, 41 years in the pointy end. My post-retirement job makes me privy to incident reports/technical bulletins, etc.
I don't think either of us engineers ever suggested dual thrust loss is somehow fine. The only dual engine thrust loss that I recall happened on a Boeing 767 out of LA when the pilots on the pointy end accidentally shut off the fuel flow to the engines. It was a new aircraft to them at the time having transitioned from the Boeing 727. Luckily, the CF6-80 engines restarted quickly before the aircraft hit the sea.
There was one other incident I recall where ice crystals in the fuel caused a Boeing 777, operated by BA, to land short of the runway because of restrictive fuel flow to the engines when added power was demanded. The fuel/oil heat exchanger was modified to correct the problem on RR engines.
You paint a very dire picture of the engines that power jet aircraft. I would suggest to you that your career at the pointy end wouldn't have lasted 41 years with the picture you paint if it were true...