(June 27, 2017 at 4:47 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: In a 'severe' case of the engine disintegrating internally and 'locking up' the pins connecting the engine to the mount(s) the pins are designed to shatter and release the engine 'harmlessly'.
The crash of flight 191 in Chicago was somewhat different, the pin didn't let go, the mount did, and when the engine separated from the wing it damaged enough hydraulics the plane was no longer flyable.
IIRC, in Europe a crash occurred when the pin(s) failed on a good engine. That 747 hit an apartment building.
This also demonstrates the absurdity of prayer.
Even in the case of this horrible outcome that did not end well where unfortunately people died, you have a natural explanation to design flaw and or lack of inspection upkeep to replace worn out parts.
In the case of the Australian flight making it back, credit should be given, outside the blade failure, to the redundancy design in the rest of the plane. The factory engineers deserve credit. The blade designers and company who makes them, they need to be held to account. But the factories who make the rest of the parts that compensated for that flaw, they deserve credit.
