That guy knew all he needed to know, he was out of there.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
442 points (99.1% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
7938 readers
1961 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It was actually unrelated. He just got a call that unlimited popcorn shrimp was back at Red Lobster for a limited time.
Edit: People downvoting me must have tried to go to Red Lobster, only to realize it's not back in their area. And now they're mad at me for getting them hungry.
Jeez, you guys need to learn timing. That kind of humor isn't ok this soon after a tragedy. Just like UPS delaying my delivery of ball gags isnt ok.
As a neurodivergent let me tell you that's a very subjective subject. I love his post.
The really impressive thing to me about this video, other than the obvious fireball, is how quickly that flag changes directions and how violently it flaps, showing just how much air the fireball is pulling in.
For those trying to find it (like me) the flag is in the edge of the parking lot and looks like one of those tall vertical ones.
load more comments
(2 replies)
https://x.com/ShelbyWx_/status/1985893358720438345 is one of the craziest i've seen so far
Foul. I am not giving a click to X.
It won’t even let me see it, it just redirects me to their app I would never touch
The way the plane just rolled into frame, I would have just called it Hollywood BS...
Truth is stranger than fiction
New York Times claims that one engine fell off the plane.
That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
Yeah, none of the flights i have flown on had an engine fall off. But I have never flown on a UPS cargo plane, they may do things differently.
That model was dropped by passenger Airlines because of excessive maintenance issues. This flight was to Honolulu, had 34 000 gallons of fuel and it tore a strip one mile long from the runway.
So what do you do to protect the environment in these cases?
Tow it outside the environment
Into a different environment?
Yes, preferably an extra environment or two over. NIMBY!
At least the front didn’t fall off.
It's not the first time an engine has fallen off of a DC-10/MD-11.
1979 Chicago O'Hare American Airlines AA191
That particular instance was due to maintenance not following the correct procedure for mounting the engine. It caused cracks in the support pylon and it was just a matter of time. The crazy thing is the pilots did exactly what they should have done. The problem is the warning system for slat disagreement was only powered by the electrical bus supplied by the engine that just departed the aircraft. So the pilots had no idea that the slats on that side of the aircraft retracted due to damage to the hydraulic lines. So that wing complete stalled and 271 people died.
The difference with this crash is the plane was wings level until the tail hit the ground. Also in that video if you look closely the slats are out on the port wing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Please only use aeronautical sources for aeronautical stuff: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0
Mainstream media doesn’t know shit about airplanes, ATC or meteorology and they often over simplify the facts sometimes making them wrong (like calling every ATC unit a "tower").
But yeah apparently engine 1 (left) went away during the takeoff roll, for unknown reasons. Engine 2 (middle one on the tail) seemed to have stalled, probably because of the high pitch up attitude disrupting the airflow to the engine.
If all is true then yeah, a MTOW (maximum takeoff weight) MD11 wouldn’t fly with only one engine, and it didn’t.
Another likely reason for the engine 2 compressor stall is due to debris from the left wing being ingested. Either way though, as you pointed out, it wasn't going to fly on one remaining engine with that takeoff weight.
Are planes not designed with a backup(the second engine, knowing the plane can fly with just one, although evidently not take off), and a backup for the backup(a second set of engines) to prevent exactly this?
I know nothing of aircraft but im guessing because it was a cargo plane and not a passenger plane they only had one layer of redundancy instead of two?
Not anymore. This was an old tri-jet. Once engines became reliable enough to increase ETOPS ratings (the time a plane can fly with an engine out) from 60 to now 240 minutes, and you could fly a 2-engine jet across the ocean on the same route as a four- or three-engine jet, it didn’t make sense to keep buying those with higher engine counts and the accompanying fuel usage required.
In turn, those older planes like the 747, DC-10, and MD-11, are generally turned into cargo aircraft for the remainder of their service life. They still have all the same airworthiness requirements needed to fly in US and other countries’ airspace.
This jet should have been able to take off with two of its three engines just fine, but I heard a rumor that the middle engine suffered a compressor stall and wasn’t running at full power. From the video it looks like the nose is up but the plane is descending due to lack of power. Even if the engine stall isn’t true, if the engine comes off the wing, as what seems to be the case here, it can critically damage the wing itself and stall it. See American Airlines 191 disaster in Chicago, for example.
A follow up to my earlier response because I want to help foster your curiosity and knowledge.
This video is a good example of how the tech of trijets was very successful in its day, but ultimately lost out to the twin-engine jets we see today. Enjoy!
That was very educational! But no matter how many facts you hit me with i dont think i will ever be comfortable on a twin jet. It does raise a good questions though, they mentioned quad jets are gas guzzlers due to the four engines, but couldnt they just use two? I dont see why all four engines have to be in use, i just want them to be there in case of failure. And yeah, i see the issue that now youre paying extra two carry around a bunch of weight that should hopefully never be utilized, but I would imagine an extra layer of redundancy might offset the cost of the extra weight by not making you buy a new plane when your first two engines reach the end of their life.
Basically, an extra engine wouldve saved this plane. Over the course of this planes life, would the fuel cost of that extra unused weight be more than the value of the plane, cargo on the plane, and the loss of life associated?
Or maybe there is a technical reason you cant have two unused jets? Are they impossible to cold start in air?
First, thanks for being curious. I’ll try to answer as best I can, but I am just a huge aviation nerd, so I’d welcome others to correct me if I misrepresent anything.
Could a quad jet run with only two engines, yes! But why? It would be the equivalent of you towing another car behind yours all the time, just in case the first broke. Not only are you putting more strain on the aircraft, but you’re hugely increasing drag and increasing your fuel and maintenance costs for very little benefit, so long as your primary vehicle is maintained appropriately.
Planes last 30-40+ years. Think if your next new car could last 40 years but it’s gas mileage doubled or tripled over your old car AND its maintenance costs went down by half. It’s not even a question to upgrade from a financial sense. That’s what the airlines see.
Next, can an engine be restarted cold? Yes, but it’s not like you’re just turning a key and away we go. Plus, during this startup phase, the pilots would still need to be actively troubleshooting the failed engine issue, so you’re only adding workload to the crew.
If I understand your comments overall, you’re uneasy with a twin jet because of engine reliability, and would like additional engine for safety, and that is an excellent suggestion. In practice, though, twin engines jets have their engine manufacturers to thank.
GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce (among others) have done amazing work to make these marvels run reliably. Old turbojets like on the 707 were low powered and relatively unreliable, which is why having 4 engines was done for safety. A modern turbofan can run for thousands upon thousands of hours with proper maintenance. And if one fails, the other is completely capable of powering the aircraft through all flight phases, from takeoff to cruise to landing.
Could there be a dual engine failure? Absolutely. But the odds are exceeding slim, and would almost certainly require outside influence. The latest planes have ETOPS 370 certification, which means that if one of the two engines fails, they can still fly on that single engine for six hours.
Imagine flying London to Los Angeles, and losing an engine over New York — they could just complete the flight and still be able to fly for over an hour. Not that they would, but just an example of the margins we’re talking about.
Twin engines are remarkably safe and reliable, and the data over the last 30 years backs it up. The longest flight in the world is done by a twin engine jet, for example. (JFK to Singapore.) In fact, of the top 20 longest routes, 18 are done by twin jets, and two by quads.
TL;DR: they’re safe, bro! Get on the plane and go somewhere fun! Sorry for writing a novel.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Just to be specific as you received tons of answers already.
Yes a modern bi-jet aircraft can takeoff with only one engine (think A320, B7** etc). Provided that there isn’t any other huge issue affecting the performance or the airframe (like a wing on fire).
This MD11 was a tri-jet from another era and it seems that it lost 2 engines out of 3.
And no there are no backup engines, that would be dead weight and engines are very heavy.
That backup is the other engine, their reliability and the fact that an aircraft can still fly without engines (if at altitude of course) and glide to an airport for an emergency landing.
Insane. Thank you for the response
There's video from a news helicopter, and still images from other sources, showing a damaged engine lying next to the runway where the plane was taking off from.
In that video it does look like the portside engine is missing.
Good eye. If you freeze frame at around 0:01 we can see that the wing nearest to the camera has an engine under it like normal, but the farther back wing is just a flat surface underneath
That reminds me of that Israeli el-al Boeing that went down over Amsterdam some 30 years ago.
Lost one engine because of shit maintenance, that engine hit and ripped off a second engine and part of its wing and it still kept flying for a bit
This Canadian engineer could have saved everyone
load more comments
(1 replies)
Content not available in your region. I wish Imgur didn't block VPNs :(
Was this a Boeing?
For those who come after: no it wasn't. It was a McDonnell Douglas. https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=259UP
It's probably worse.
In the 90s Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were the two major aircraft manufacturers in the US.
One was thriving, renowned for it's engineering excellency and the quality of the aircraft there produced: Boeing.
The other one was facing technical issues, development cost overruns, growing unit costs, and delays mostly due to leadership and management decisions: McDonnel Douglas.
In 1997 they merged, the new entity kept the name Boeing but most of the leadership positions were filled by executives coming from McDonnel Douglas.
For a lot of people this merger marks the moment Boeing started to spiral downwards.
I didn't get these companies that do shit maintenance. Is it really worth the loss of lives and a full on plane to not do the bare minimum?
CEOs of giant corporations are sometimes actually sociopaths, so they don't care if they kill people. And they get financially rewarded only for short term profit, the company's long term future doesn't effect them at all, so they don't care if reducing maintenance causes problems for the company 10 years later
Read Almost a Psychopath by Silver and Shouten. There is neuroscience behind how CEOs behave.
I'm as anti CEO/billionaire as you, but people are also inherently lazy and selfish AF, and so negligence is possible at every level of this thing, except maybe the folks on board the plane. There's no point in levying out blame until there's actual information about what happened, rather than speculation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How about waiting until the NTSB's full report next year before making accusations? One thing I can say for sure, multiple things went wrong.
Run Chris! Pump those crazy legs!
view more: next ›