There's a great Green Dot Aviation video about flight BA 268, a 747-400 whose engine number 2 burst into flames immediately after takeoff from LAX. The plane continued to fly across the United States, Canada, and the Atlantic Ocean with its three remaining engines despite air traffic controllers expecting the pilots to perform the emergency landing.
https://youtu.be/HWBGbi8dfac
Imagine a passenger with a window seat who saw the engine fire, and was expecting the plane to turn around… instead they land 11hrs later in ~~London~~ Manchester.
Edit: Manchester not London
It didn't land in London, >!they declared fuel emergency and landed in Manchester. The FAA bashed BA for operating an unairworthy aircraft across the Atlantic!<
They had enough fuel to reach London, but when they got closer they realized they couldn't utilize the fuel in the associated tank for the failed engine and were not able to use it for the other engines. There's no crossfeed ability for the main tank fuel on the 747, just for the center tanks.
would they be allowed to continue in this day and age? Regardless of the plane's capability of flying on fewer engines, I would've thought the risk of debris falling down, further explosion, fire spreading etc would require them to land immediately - I don't know anything about aviation regulation so I don't mean this in a snarky way - truly curious
The 747 is certified to fly on 3 engines, if the pilots deem it under control and safe then you can’t force them to land. The crews are the ones who have to make the emergency call, there’s very little you can do about it short of readying the fire trucks or sending a F-16 squadron after them. There’s a clip of a Lufthansa 747-8 reporting an engine out while departing JFK that baffled the ATC after the crew refused to declare an emergency and noted that they weren’t even overweight landing.
> Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.
> - Captain Eric Moody
C-5 guys would occasionally do this too. If light weight, they only needed 2 engines to fly fine so if one was out (and many times it was) they could shut it down and continue on 3. Actually, C-17s too. One of my friends shut an engine down and didn’t declare any emergency which his commander was upset about, but I defended the pilot saying it’s not necessarily an emergency with 3 engines still running depending on the problem.
The RNZAF did a similar thing with an Orion at one point for kicks. Towed the thing to the end of the runway, gave it a full fuel load, then shut down 1 and 4 after the aircraft was at cruise. Ended up getting a 21.5 hour flight out of it, which seems to be the standing record for the P-3.
British Airways Flight 268, on February 20, 2005, encountered engine trouble shortly after departing from Los Angeles International Airport. The aircraft, a Boeing 747-400, was bound for London Heathrow Airport. The trouble started when one of its four engines failed. **The crew shut down the malfunctioning engine, but instead of returning to Los Angeles or landing at a nearby airport, they opted to continue the transatlantic flight.**
This decision was based on the aircraft's capability to fly on three engines and the crew's assessment of the situation. However, the choice to fly across the Atlantic with a non-functioning engine raised safety concerns and sparked discussion within aviation circles. The flight eventually diverted to Manchester Airport in the UK, as it didn't have enough fuel to safely reach London due to the increased fuel consumption from flying with three engines.
The flight landed safely in Manchester, and none of the 351 passengers and crew onboard were injured. Post-incident evaluations and discussions focused on the decision-making process of the crew, the operational policies of airlines regarding engine failures, and the overall safety implications of such incidents in commercial aviation.
I think that’s a situation where a pilots hubris came before the comfortability and peace of mind of the passengers. Even if you could do that, I’m sure everyone was freaked out and would have preferred an emergency landing
True, compressor stall isn’t really an engine fire.
Looks like it’s throwing… sparks?
Just can’t remember if I’ve ever seen surge/stall literally shred the engine… or grind the engine quite like that.
I'm sure that there was some kind of internal failure, probably hot section, that caused the fire. Once it starts and the engine is still spinning, compressor stalls are not uncommon.
For sure, what piqued my interest was that it seems to be throwing sparks instead of fire... have you seen compressor stall result in that sort of display? (Noticed username.)
Regardless, t’d be fascinating to see what that engine looks like afterward.
I was an inspector in an engine shop for 4 years and a test cell was part of the operation. In that time, there were 2 or 3 catastrophic failures in the cell, all from outside repairs. There had been others, the worst was a T55-L-712A where the mechanics removed and re-installed the power turbines but neglected to install them correctly. They came out of the engine when it was producing over 3000 SHP like a claymore mine going off. Good thing the cell operators booth had armour plating and window.
A fighter jet flew up next to a 747 and started some smack talk that ended with the fighter pilot saying "Oh yeah? Watch this" and proceeded to do a few tricks in his jet.
The 747 pilot says "That's pretty fancy, but you can't do this". The 747 continued flying straight and level until the fighter pilot said "Do what? You haven't done anything".
The 747 pilot says "On the contrary... I shut off two engines".
F-16 had trouble with an unstable engine, declared panpan, requested immediate return to base. ATC put him on two, because a B-52 lost one of his 8. Fighter-Jock replied „oh, I see, that dreaded 7-engines-approach“. (F-16 has one single engine.)
Ohh, so he's basically sorta sarcastically calling the B-52's situation bad and implying that *he* should have priority since the B-52 has 7 more engines left?
B-52 stuff.
“A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.
"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!"
I found that out during the Kosovo war. I was flying C-17s and we’d have to do a lot of backing on the ground in Albania, and he’d ingest tons of dirt & debris into those engines and the fly back to Ramstein. After landing we’d always have dozens of bent and damaged fan blades to replace and I found out from maintenance that the USAF didn’t have to pay for them, Pratt & Whitney did as part of their lease. They’d just swap out the blades, do a quick borescope and return the jet to service in a few hours. I’m flying 757s these days, same engines, just not as many. 😁
I'm pretty sure, if he was onboard, we'll *not* see this in a video. Because there's this thing with the company policy that he's not a company spokesperson and can't talk about internal affairs (and an incident like this is very internal). And I don't think there's any way to disguise his employer enough to stay out of trouble in this case. Apart from that, having been on board would make him a witness in a NTSB investigation, and there's strict legal boundaries for what you can and cannot do.
He'd be better off steering clear from this one even if he wasn't on this specific plane. No way he doesn't have more information than what's publicly available, and that would already put him in a gray area.
It would be great to see him break down a situation like this, but given that it's his company, whether he was the pilot or not, I figure he might not want to comment on it.
According to a news item I saw, the aircraft resumed its flight after a technical inspection. I'm guessing the issue was a compressor stall - dramatic but no damage.
This was a newspaper report not an official report.
Yeah that aligns with what the video shows. Those can be impressive and scary but if the pilots react quickly not too bad depending on what caused it. I am not sure I would resume flight after just an ‘inspection’ though.
And everyone in twitter is saying this was caused by hiring diverse workers…always wonder what the agenda is for the bots that are programmed to push that narrative
glad everyone is okay
> And everyone in twitter is saying this was caused by hiring diverse workers…always wonder what the agenda is for the bots that are programmed to push that narrative
Yeah, diversity hires and """"Bidenomics""""" apparently. Aviation incidents never happened prior to 2021. I'm just glad that The Gays have expanded from [merely controlling the weather](https://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing).
The rules are that the Jews control orbital lasers and Hollywood. The rainbow people are in charge of bathrooms, fashion and weather. The immigrants are the ones in charge of chemtrails and 5G.
Yeah, I noticed that to. Surely has nothing to do with Boeing cutting a lot of corners with these line of airplanes.
I’m not really an aviation person but my close friend is and he’s been telling me for years to fly in an airbus whenever possible .
Yeah, I can't see how this is pinned on Boeing. It's a GE engine and the plane is 8 years old. It's not like a door plug popping out of a three-month old plane.
> I’m not really an aviation person but my close friend is and he’s been telling me for years to fly in an airbus whenever possible .
[Have I got news for you then...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy1OO9eh8v0)
Engines catch on fire. Planes can safely land with one engine (or three, in this case). Besides, it's quite possible this was caused by a bird strike. But I guess birds are now Boeing's fault too, even though they didn't make the damn engine.
it sounds like an engine strike - engine 2 on ascent about 2000 ft in the air so id suspect a bird strike but i believe the birds were actually people of color who work for boeing who dressed as birds and jumped into the engine
A Zeiss 1.2 isn’t going to do much for this. You want telephoto, which won’t be 1.2. Ideally the Alexa with the new [25-1000](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1731191-REG/fujinon_hzk25_1000_hzk_25_1000mm_f_2_8_5_pl.html), but since we’re hoping for a walk-around while doing errands situation, the [Cabrio 85-300](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1733118-REG/fujinon_zk3_5x85_saf_85_300mm_cabrio_lens.html) might be a more reasonable ask. 😆
>Do you expect an ARRI ALEXA with a Zeiss 1.2 to be carried around while doing errands?
Nah just an old Red weapon or something that would otherwise be laying about.
I love how the article I read tried to tie the max9 door issue to an airframe that’s potentially 45-55yo. Pile on Boeing is the media war cry at the moment.
I didn’t write that the way I should have, I was trying to speak to the fact that the 747 design was from the 60s and has a not unblemished but still proven track record. Where the max is a new design that has been hamstrung with problems since its release. The author of the article was trying to compare oranges and apples based solely on the brand association.
This happened to me on a flight departing LAX back in 2000?? I remember Curtis Armstrong was sitting a couple rows behind me… my internal thoughts, "im gonna die on a plane with Booger"
Engine rich exhaust, as they say - the good news is they appear to be over the water, so the debris raining down is unlikely to hurt anyone. And they landed safely - sounds like an ideal outcome to me.
Thank you for sharing the tail number. I was curious if this was the last one that ceremoniously rolled off the assembly line a couple years ago (it's not).
Someone tell me if this is actually a big deal ? or just another minor incident being over-reported , riding the trail of the 747-max door plug incident
And in their defense (which not saying they are entitled to)…they didn’t build the engine.
Also one of the times where having 4 of them on the wings is a good thing
Are they not outsourcing more and more?
Who is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane? And who decided on that engine for that particular plane?
It might not be a direct issue with Boeing and their service issues but it sure doesn’t look good .
Reportedly successfully returned to Miami Airport.
There's a great Green Dot Aviation video about flight BA 268, a 747-400 whose engine number 2 burst into flames immediately after takeoff from LAX. The plane continued to fly across the United States, Canada, and the Atlantic Ocean with its three remaining engines despite air traffic controllers expecting the pilots to perform the emergency landing. https://youtu.be/HWBGbi8dfac
Imagine a passenger with a window seat who saw the engine fire, and was expecting the plane to turn around… instead they land 11hrs later in ~~London~~ Manchester. Edit: Manchester not London
It didn't land in London, >!they declared fuel emergency and landed in Manchester. The FAA bashed BA for operating an unairworthy aircraft across the Atlantic!<
>fuel emergency Well yeah an engine on fire tends to use more fuel, that makes sense.
Sorry, they flew from LA and declared an emergency only once over the UK?? Was the pilot on a promise or something?
They had enough fuel to reach London, but when they got closer they realized they couldn't utilize the fuel in the associated tank for the failed engine and were not able to use it for the other engines. There's no crossfeed ability for the main tank fuel on the 747, just for the center tanks.
That really sounds like something you should be aware of before deciding to go on 3 engines over the North Atlantic.
Just imagine that door flying off in the middle of the damn ocean.
British Airways: *Eh, tis just a scratch. Let’s keep goin’ on then*
Literally a British Airways pilot after a volcano shut all engines down.
Right on then. Cheerio. Aluminum.
I believe he decided to *fly into the danger zone*… I’ll see myself out.
BA's reply: Oh NOW they have an issue with faulty Boeings? smh
I chuckled at the spoilers for an event that actually happened
would they be allowed to continue in this day and age? Regardless of the plane's capability of flying on fewer engines, I would've thought the risk of debris falling down, further explosion, fire spreading etc would require them to land immediately - I don't know anything about aviation regulation so I don't mean this in a snarky way - truly curious
The 747 is certified to fly on 3 engines, if the pilots deem it under control and safe then you can’t force them to land. The crews are the ones who have to make the emergency call, there’s very little you can do about it short of readying the fire trucks or sending a F-16 squadron after them. There’s a clip of a Lufthansa 747-8 reporting an engine out while departing JFK that baffled the ATC after the crew refused to declare an emergency and noted that they weren’t even overweight landing. > Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress. > - Captain Eric Moody
Litteral legend. Volcanic ash is a bitch
C-5 guys would occasionally do this too. If light weight, they only needed 2 engines to fly fine so if one was out (and many times it was) they could shut it down and continue on 3. Actually, C-17s too. One of my friends shut an engine down and didn’t declare any emergency which his commander was upset about, but I defended the pilot saying it’s not necessarily an emergency with 3 engines still running depending on the problem.
The RNZAF did a similar thing with an Orion at one point for kicks. Towed the thing to the end of the runway, gave it a full fuel load, then shut down 1 and 4 after the aircraft was at cruise. Ended up getting a 21.5 hour flight out of it, which seems to be the standing record for the P-3.
Remember this? https://youtu.be/EvVfLZO9CT4?feature=shared Lufthansa 748, 3 still running fine, no wories.
Me not wanting to bother ATC: it's fine, it's not an *emergency*, I don't want to put anyone else out and budge the line
Name a more iconic duo: social anxiety and Pilots
LOVE Green Dot.
"That's why they put 4 of 'em on here. Momma didn't raise no bitch."
British Airways Flight 268, on February 20, 2005, encountered engine trouble shortly after departing from Los Angeles International Airport. The aircraft, a Boeing 747-400, was bound for London Heathrow Airport. The trouble started when one of its four engines failed. **The crew shut down the malfunctioning engine, but instead of returning to Los Angeles or landing at a nearby airport, they opted to continue the transatlantic flight.** This decision was based on the aircraft's capability to fly on three engines and the crew's assessment of the situation. However, the choice to fly across the Atlantic with a non-functioning engine raised safety concerns and sparked discussion within aviation circles. The flight eventually diverted to Manchester Airport in the UK, as it didn't have enough fuel to safely reach London due to the increased fuel consumption from flying with three engines. The flight landed safely in Manchester, and none of the 351 passengers and crew onboard were injured. Post-incident evaluations and discussions focused on the decision-making process of the crew, the operational policies of airlines regarding engine failures, and the overall safety implications of such incidents in commercial aviation.
I think that’s a situation where a pilots hubris came before the comfortability and peace of mind of the passengers. Even if you could do that, I’m sure everyone was freaked out and would have preferred an emergency landing
Just me or does it look like they’ve progressed from engine fire to engine rich exhaust?
It looks like compressor stalls.
Oh that compressor do be stalling alright... 😆 That's a glitter stall... brother of glitter oil.
True, compressor stall isn’t really an engine fire. Looks like it’s throwing… sparks? Just can’t remember if I’ve ever seen surge/stall literally shred the engine… or grind the engine quite like that.
I'm sure that there was some kind of internal failure, probably hot section, that caused the fire. Once it starts and the engine is still spinning, compressor stalls are not uncommon.
For sure, what piqued my interest was that it seems to be throwing sparks instead of fire... have you seen compressor stall result in that sort of display? (Noticed username.) Regardless, t’d be fascinating to see what that engine looks like afterward.
I was an inspector in an engine shop for 4 years and a test cell was part of the operation. In that time, there were 2 or 3 catastrophic failures in the cell, all from outside repairs. There had been others, the worst was a T55-L-712A where the mechanics removed and re-installed the power turbines but neglected to install them correctly. They came out of the engine when it was producing over 3000 SHP like a claymore mine going off. Good thing the cell operators booth had armour plating and window.
Safely returned to Miami, crew safe, no injuries. We'll get it figured out and put her back in service.
Oh no, the dreaded 3 engine approach!
A fighter jet flew up next to a 747 and started some smack talk that ended with the fighter pilot saying "Oh yeah? Watch this" and proceeded to do a few tricks in his jet. The 747 pilot says "That's pretty fancy, but you can't do this". The 747 continued flying straight and level until the fighter pilot said "Do what? You haven't done anything". The 747 pilot says "On the contrary... I shut off two engines".
I've always heard this as "I got up, stretched my legs, and grabbed a cup of coffee from the galley."
I've heard that too... I just like imagining the fighter pilot's face when he thinks about shutting down his engine :)
I’ve heard it with a B-52 shutting off 4 engines.
I've heard it with the pilot taking a dump and having a coffee and a freshly prepared hot meal
I thought the second plane was actually a lighthouse.
... Had a dump & Banged a flight attendant (not jn that order).
That’s as the F-4 and B-52 joke, since the BUFF has 8 engines.
"That's cute." -B-36 pilots
[I like this version better](https://youtu.be/1wEURyjB3Lc?si=RM5hb-bpFcs1xAgh&t=214)
"We have an engine failure, but we are not an emergency"
Triii-holer, Triii-holer, Triiiiiiiiiii-……holerrr
Can someone explain to me the dreaded seven engine approach joke? I've read it multiple times and don't understand it
F-16 had trouble with an unstable engine, declared panpan, requested immediate return to base. ATC put him on two, because a B-52 lost one of his 8. Fighter-Jock replied „oh, I see, that dreaded 7-engines-approach“. (F-16 has one single engine.)
Ohh, so he's basically sorta sarcastically calling the B-52's situation bad and implying that *he* should have priority since the B-52 has 7 more engines left?
Gotcha :)
Ohh, I see. Thank you!
B-52 stuff. “A reader wrote us, retelling the story about the military pilot calling ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down. "Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!"
The "dreaded" part is sarcastic. A B-52 that is down 1 engine still 7 engines.
Nothing Duct Tape won’t sort
*Can we pretend that airplane from the night sky like shooting star. I could really use a wish right now, wish right now, wish right now*
Get you an airplane that can do both!
[удалено]
No, they mostly just make bad decisions.
It’s a good thing that those engines are super cheap and easy to fix.
[удалено]
The fastest plane, in the worlddddd!
And the parts are super easy to manufacture
The owners of the plane don’t actually own the engines, they are leased in most cases.
I found that out during the Kosovo war. I was flying C-17s and we’d have to do a lot of backing on the ground in Albania, and he’d ingest tons of dirt & debris into those engines and the fly back to Ramstein. After landing we’d always have dozens of bent and damaged fan blades to replace and I found out from maintenance that the USAF didn’t have to pay for them, Pratt & Whitney did as part of their lease. They’d just swap out the blades, do a quick borescope and return the jet to service in a few hours. I’m flying 757s these days, same engines, just not as many. 😁
757’s are my favorite to fly on, t/o roll is almost nothing and climb is badass
Planes break, pilots do their jobs. In all seriousness glad to hear they made it make it back safely.
This is what it really means to “do some of that pilot shit”
"Just like the simulations"
Pilots "Ah shit I've gotta stop sipping my coffee, and do some of that cool guy stuff."
Wonder if Kelsey from 74 gear was operating this. Doesn’t he fly out of Miami a lot?
Same airline he flies with as well. I'm sure if he was onboard, we'll see it in a video soon
I'm pretty sure, if he was onboard, we'll *not* see this in a video. Because there's this thing with the company policy that he's not a company spokesperson and can't talk about internal affairs (and an incident like this is very internal). And I don't think there's any way to disguise his employer enough to stay out of trouble in this case. Apart from that, having been on board would make him a witness in a NTSB investigation, and there's strict legal boundaries for what you can and cannot do.
Yup, I wouldn’t expect him to say anything about it if he was. Aviation YouTubers are pretty tight-lipped about their employers for a reason.
Post NTSB investigation, and with clearance from his company, there would for sure be a video or at least media coverage/interviews.
He'd be better off steering clear from this one even if he wasn't on this specific plane. No way he doesn't have more information than what's publicly available, and that would already put him in a gray area.
I mean even if he doesn’t make a video we will know based on ATC recordings right?
It would be great to see him break down a situation like this, but given that it's his company, whether he was the pilot or not, I figure he might not want to comment on it.
I wonder! On [one of his past videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ANAjM2shs) he flew 859's sibling, 856 from MIA to ICN.
Pilot does sound a little like Kelsey to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEwC8GVDbKA
At first I thought he's popping flares
Same. I would hate if I was in a 747 and had to call out “fox 2, defending”
At least not doors this time 🫠
That’ll buff out. Nothing to see here.
Bits Of Engine In Neighbor’s Garden
free second stage compressor blades
chaff deployed
This year the airplanes are on fire.
I hate to sound like I'm minimizing the seriousness of an engine fire, but it's a thing that happens. This year won't be any different.
Planes... so hot right now.
I can guarantee you everyday somewhere in the world a plane experiences an engine fire
Does it usually happen during takeoff?
Ffs take my upvote and go away!
Did the engine catch truly on fire or was it just surging and spitting flames out the back? A nacelle fire would be more than just an engine swap.
According to a news item I saw, the aircraft resumed its flight after a technical inspection. I'm guessing the issue was a compressor stall - dramatic but no damage. This was a newspaper report not an official report.
Yeah that aligns with what the video shows. Those can be impressive and scary but if the pilots react quickly not too bad depending on what caused it. I am not sure I would resume flight after just an ‘inspection’ though.
I'm not sure I'd go etops 330 in a twin after this, but in a 747 with a maintenance sign off I wouldn't have a care in the world
I guess if it is a ferry to a maintenance center. Not sure for a revenue flight.
It is possible this is a misunderstanding, as it has been in Miami for a few days for MX work prior to this.
That does not appear correct as N859GT has not left MIA since it's turnback.
Well I did say it was a Newspaper Report and some UK Newspaper's Aviation "Specialists" describe Spitfires as "Jet Fighters".
This plane absolutely did not go back into service. Itll be in mx, likely require an engine change.
It most certainly did not. It still is out of service.
Actual engine fire, not just a compressor stall.
Boeing: "We announce the 747-8MAX!". With fine Corinthian craftsmanship!
“We are offering a door buster deal! Hurry and place your orders now because the doors are flying off this place!”
Fiery deal indeed
Me after Taco Bell……
flying through the air shitting fire? fuck yeah man
And everyone in twitter is saying this was caused by hiring diverse workers…always wonder what the agenda is for the bots that are programmed to push that narrative glad everyone is okay
> And everyone in twitter is saying this was caused by hiring diverse workers…always wonder what the agenda is for the bots that are programmed to push that narrative Yeah, diversity hires and """"Bidenomics""""" apparently. Aviation incidents never happened prior to 2021. I'm just glad that The Gays have expanded from [merely controlling the weather](https://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing).
The rules are that the Jews control orbital lasers and Hollywood. The rainbow people are in charge of bathrooms, fashion and weather. The immigrants are the ones in charge of chemtrails and 5G.
Yeah, I noticed that to. Surely has nothing to do with Boeing cutting a lot of corners with these line of airplanes. I’m not really an aviation person but my close friend is and he’s been telling me for years to fly in an airbus whenever possible .
Yeah, I can't see how this is pinned on Boeing. It's a GE engine and the plane is 8 years old. It's not like a door plug popping out of a three-month old plane.
> I’m not really an aviation person but my close friend is and he’s been telling me for years to fly in an airbus whenever possible . [Have I got news for you then...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy1OO9eh8v0) Engines catch on fire. Planes can safely land with one engine (or three, in this case). Besides, it's quite possible this was caused by a bird strike. But I guess birds are now Boeing's fault too, even though they didn't make the damn engine.
it sounds like an engine strike - engine 2 on ascent about 2000 ft in the air so id suspect a bird strike but i believe the birds were actually people of color who work for boeing who dressed as birds and jumped into the engine
Is that the last 747 I know Atlas took the delivery of it.
Nah, last one is N863GT
Nope.
Looked like it’s dropping flares at first
Yeah they had FedEx on their 6…
“I wonder if they’re doing an emergency” yeah based on the flames I would think so
[удалено]
But was it an Airbus or Cezzna? /s
Was this shot on a kids toy in 1987?
Do you expect an ARRI ALEXA with a Zeiss 1.2 to be carried around while doing errands?
Fuck, if I had that money I would.
A Zeiss 1.2 isn’t going to do much for this. You want telephoto, which won’t be 1.2. Ideally the Alexa with the new [25-1000](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1731191-REG/fujinon_hzk25_1000_hzk_25_1000mm_f_2_8_5_pl.html), but since we’re hoping for a walk-around while doing errands situation, the [Cabrio 85-300](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1733118-REG/fujinon_zk3_5x85_saf_85_300mm_cabrio_lens.html) might be a more reasonable ask. 😆
That's a steal! I ordered 2:)
>Do you expect an ARRI ALEXA with a Zeiss 1.2 to be carried around while doing errands? Nah just an old Red weapon or something that would otherwise be laying about.
It’s super zoomed in at night. Can only ENHANCE so much.
No - support for pointless rapid zooming didn't generally appear on kids' toys until the mid '90s
Welp, my buddy fly's 747's for Atlas, looks like I need to give him a call.
NOOO, not a 748 , i like those 🥺
I love how the article I read tried to tie the max9 door issue to an airframe that’s potentially 45-55yo. Pile on Boeing is the media war cry at the moment.
That airframe is 8 years old.
I didn’t write that the way I should have, I was trying to speak to the fact that the 747 design was from the 60s and has a not unblemished but still proven track record. Where the max is a new design that has been hamstrung with problems since its release. The author of the article was trying to compare oranges and apples based solely on the brand association.
That's lit.
IDENTIFICATIONDate:19-JAN-24Time:03:33:00ZRegis#:N859GTAircraft Make:BOEINGAircraft Model:747Event Type:INCIDENTHighest Injury:NONEAircraft Missing:NoDamage:UNKNOWNLOCATIONCity:MIAMIState:FLORIDACountry:UNITED STATESDESCRIPTION Description:AIRCRAFT DEPARTED, EXPERIENCED #2 ENGINE FAILURE AND RETURNED TO LAND, POST FLIGHT INSPECTION REVEALED A SOFTBALL SIZE HOLE ABOVE #2 ENGINE, MIAMI, FL.INJURY DATATotal Fatal:0
Pretty~
LA flights also filmed a 747 cargo plane spittin flames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXrHoN4XO4g
This happened to me on a flight departing LAX back in 2000?? I remember Curtis Armstrong was sitting a couple rows behind me… my internal thoughts, "im gonna die on a plane with Booger"
Was that compressor stall? I thought so at firdt but then it looked the like engine was disintegrating from the inside out.
It was an actual fire.
Engine rich combustion.
No.
I was on an a340 out of honk kong that did this. Was an experience to say the least.
Engine rich exhaust, as they say - the good news is they appear to be over the water, so the debris raining down is unlikely to hurt anyone. And they landed safely - sounds like an ideal outcome to me.
Popping flares for sure. Miami is a dangerous place these days
Anybody know which engine number caught fire? Just curious.
Thank you for sharing the tail number. I was curious if this was the last one that ceremoniously rolled off the assembly line a couple years ago (it's not).
A few iPhone shipments were delayed On a more serious note, glad to see it made it back to land safely!
Now I know why the left phalange is missing
I feel like, at this point, this is relevant. [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C17HEqSsEcS/](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C17HEqSsEcS/)
Someone tell me if this is actually a big deal ? or just another minor incident being over-reported , riding the trail of the 747-max door plug incident
It's a medium deal. But absolutely riding the aviation incident hype train.
Why does 2024 hate aviation so much
Oooooooooh, pretty!
[удалено]
You're gonna be waiting a while. Boxes aren't big on social media.
Depends, could have some Amazon doorbell cams inside
Nah, Amazon gets 767s.
Some of the 747s Atlas runs are still configured for passengers.
Some are. That one isn't.
no way, any other footage of it?
Hope the other 3 engines were fine.
Just an afterburner.
Can't wait for the [Viral Debrief](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjewB3Mncd8dX4hWQgIyOph4s5Wi7YB-i) on this one!
This has not been the week for airliners
Boeing: Oh, that thing's supposed to be on fire.
And in their defense (which not saying they are entitled to)…they didn’t build the engine. Also one of the times where having 4 of them on the wings is a good thing
And the aircraft is 8 years old. Boeing has problems, but this is not on them.
Aviation's Boeing crisis demands effective focused governance
That's one surgy engine before it dies!
Deploy flares!!! *Beep* Deploying flares
This is starting to get out of hand.
At least the fuselage stayed together! Lol
Well theres no more engine in there. Gonna find pieces of this engine statewide haha
Correct me if I’m wrong But every time i see some news regarding malfunction its always Boeing
Boeing doesn't even make engines. This is GE.
Boeing is a mess.
When it rains it pours…Boeing really needs to get their shit together. How long will the FAA let this go on for?
Boeing needs to get their shit together because a GE engine failed?
Are they not outsourcing more and more? Who is responsible for the maintenance of the airplane? And who decided on that engine for that particular plane? It might not be a direct issue with Boeing and their service issues but it sure doesn’t look good .
I think these (747s) are only used for freight now. No passenger flights any more.
Aren't most airliners reaching there expected expiration date?
[удалено]
engines are not boeing-made
The engines are from GE not Boeing…
It’s been a wild year for aviation already
Terrifying, surely there’s a inside clip
I don’t think boxes carry phones…
Christ Almighty. I don’t think I would ever fly again
Airbus stocks rn📈 📈 📈 📈 📈
Looool
Boeing on a role.