AvGeeknologist
@avgeeknologist.bsky.social
AvGeek, aviation professional, 🇪🇺, tweet in EN, DE, FR. Structural dynamics, aeroelastics and aircraft performance. Turboprop aficionado.
Glad to see they "stand ready", and I hope they will continue "standing ready" for a very long time 😉
November 27, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Glad to see they "stand ready", and I hope they will continue "standing ready" for a very long time 😉
Good points. In any case, I think the failure cascade must have been a bit more complicated than what is immediately apparent.
November 8, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Good points. In any case, I think the failure cascade must have been a bit more complicated than what is immediately apparent.
Yes, there are flashes visible in the video, however I wouldn't be sure to say what exactly that was and from which engine, if from an engine.
November 8, 2025 at 11:21 AM
Yes, there are flashes visible in the video, however I wouldn't be sure to say what exactly that was and from which engine, if from an engine.
By the way, the NTSB seems to be just as flummoxed by this aspect, they brought a vehicle performance expert into the investigation.
November 8, 2025 at 11:18 AM
By the way, the NTSB seems to be just as flummoxed by this aspect, they brought a vehicle performance expert into the investigation.
... from the fire on where #1 was. Possible, maybe, at high angle of attack, I don't know.
D) a functioning engine being shut down, highly speculative.
E) something else I didn't see yet.
D) a functioning engine being shut down, highly speculative.
E) something else I didn't see yet.
November 8, 2025 at 9:27 AM
... from the fire on where #1 was. Possible, maybe, at high angle of attack, I don't know.
D) a functioning engine being shut down, highly speculative.
E) something else I didn't see yet.
D) a functioning engine being shut down, highly speculative.
E) something else I didn't see yet.
Exactly. Something kept the remaining engines from properly functioning.
That could have been:
A) Debris from the loss of the first engine impacting #3, not likely, but possible.
B) Debris impacting engine #2, even less likely, but also possible.
C) engine #2 ingesting combusted air...
That could have been:
A) Debris from the loss of the first engine impacting #3, not likely, but possible.
B) Debris impacting engine #2, even less likely, but also possible.
C) engine #2 ingesting combusted air...
November 8, 2025 at 9:27 AM
Exactly. Something kept the remaining engines from properly functioning.
That could have been:
A) Debris from the loss of the first engine impacting #3, not likely, but possible.
B) Debris impacting engine #2, even less likely, but also possible.
C) engine #2 ingesting combusted air...
That could have been:
A) Debris from the loss of the first engine impacting #3, not likely, but possible.
B) Debris impacting engine #2, even less likely, but also possible.
C) engine #2 ingesting combusted air...
🧐 Believe it or not, these aircraft are designed to be able to climb on two engines only. The bank angle was a consequence of collisions -> a consequence, not a cause.
November 8, 2025 at 9:19 AM
🧐 Believe it or not, these aircraft are designed to be able to climb on two engines only. The bank angle was a consequence of collisions -> a consequence, not a cause.
"Deine Mudda halluziniert."
November 7, 2025 at 1:51 PM
"Deine Mudda halluziniert."
Best summary of Chicago accident:
www.faa.gov/lessons_lear...
www.faa.gov/lessons_lear...
www.faa.gov
November 6, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Best summary of Chicago accident:
www.faa.gov/lessons_lear...
www.faa.gov/lessons_lear...
A whole set of new questions popping up.
Also, probably a lot of people thinking "Chicago"
Also, probably a lot of people thinking "Chicago"
November 6, 2025 at 12:13 AM
A whole set of new questions popping up.
Also, probably a lot of people thinking "Chicago"
Also, probably a lot of people thinking "Chicago"
Reposted by AvGeeknologist
My thoughts are obviously with the victims, but they are also with the NTSB investigators who, tomorrow, will dig through half a mile of toxic debris to find the black boxes, all without being paid. Godspeed.
November 5, 2025 at 3:16 AM
My thoughts are obviously with the victims, but they are also with the NTSB investigators who, tomorrow, will dig through half a mile of toxic debris to find the black boxes, all without being paid. Godspeed.
Sorry, should read "even on two engines", as it's a three engine aircraft, not twin.
I'm always thinking "twin" these days, there are so few three-holers.
I'm always thinking "twin" these days, there are so few three-holers.
November 5, 2025 at 6:57 AM
Sorry, should read "even on two engines", as it's a three engine aircraft, not twin.
I'm always thinking "twin" these days, there are so few three-holers.
I'm always thinking "twin" these days, there are so few three-holers.
Ah, sorry, I was thinking B777, hence, "one engine operating".
As it was an MD-11, it's "two engines operating ".
The thrust loss on one engine is always covered in terms of aircraft performance on large (=multi engine) aircraft.
As it was an MD-11, it's "two engines operating ".
The thrust loss on one engine is always covered in terms of aircraft performance on large (=multi engine) aircraft.
November 5, 2025 at 6:55 AM
Ah, sorry, I was thinking B777, hence, "one engine operating".
As it was an MD-11, it's "two engines operating ".
The thrust loss on one engine is always covered in terms of aircraft performance on large (=multi engine) aircraft.
As it was an MD-11, it's "two engines operating ".
The thrust loss on one engine is always covered in terms of aircraft performance on large (=multi engine) aircraft.
Oh dear. At what point in time and space did the engine detach?
November 5, 2025 at 6:49 AM
Oh dear. At what point in time and space did the engine detach?
For a length of ~8 seconds , there is no discernible climb of the aircraft. That means there's not enough thrust-to-weight or/and too little lift-over-drag.
Note that thrust, even on one engine, should be sufficient to climb, hence, the thrust loss on one engine alone is NOT enough to explain this.
Note that thrust, even on one engine, should be sufficient to climb, hence, the thrust loss on one engine alone is NOT enough to explain this.
November 5, 2025 at 6:45 AM
For a length of ~8 seconds , there is no discernible climb of the aircraft. That means there's not enough thrust-to-weight or/and too little lift-over-drag.
Note that thrust, even on one engine, should be sufficient to climb, hence, the thrust loss on one engine alone is NOT enough to explain this.
Note that thrust, even on one engine, should be sufficient to climb, hence, the thrust loss on one engine alone is NOT enough to explain this.