Jump to content

Engine explosion Boeing 777-200


Recommended Posts

Good discussion here from professional pilots:

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncontained-engine-failure-4.html

The pilots seem to be quite calm about it -  the air traffic controller sounds more rattled:

 

Strangely there was a similar incident on the same day at Maastricht involving a 747.  Debris injured some people on the ground and damaged cars. 

 

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is impressive.  Possibly had an engine surge and the pressure build up took the cowlings off.

I would suggest that it did not 'keep on ticking' but was running down very slowly with all that wind blowing in the front end.

Bad maintenance - is that a fact!.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RobH said:

Good discussion here from professional pilots:

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncontained-engine-failure-4.html

The pilots seem to be quite calm about it -  the air traffic controller sounds more rattled:

 

Strangely there was a similar incident on the same day at Maastricht involving a 747.  Debris injured some people on the ground and damaged cars. 

 

Air traffic Vs Pilots: Don't the pilots train all the time for loss of one engine, designed to fly very well on only one. Still, I'm sure we'd rather have both !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colin Symonds said:

The 777 is my least favourite plane, the engine noise in the cabin, even when it doesn't catch fire, is very intrusive especially for overnight flights when trying to get a bit of sleep.  Give my a 380 any day or at a pinch a 787.

 

747 every time, top deck, 22 seats 3 cabin  rew . . .a decent ratio

A380 is too big with too few cabin crew

Yep, as you say, 787 at a pinch

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, john.r.davies said:

Well, what do expect?   Pratt & Whitney engine!     That'll teach United not to specify RR power units!  (Ducks and runs for cover)

Why?

You make a statement of fact, there's no need to hid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, john.r.davies said:

Well, what do expect?   Pratt & Whitney engine!     That'll teach United not to specify RR power units!  (Ducks and runs for cover)

Hi John,

P&W engines have had their problems but overall are pretty good.  RR have had their problems also but as they are British so they must be better

The 777 is a good aircraft. BA showed that it can fly on fumes so that must be good for the environment.

The A380 is a coffin with wings. It failed virtually all of its tensile testing on the whopping great test rigs. This has resulted in a possibly shorter life. 

As for forgiving aircraft the B747 is tops. Things can break, drop off and look terrifying but it tends to struggle back home.

I prefer the Viscount 800 series.

 

Roger (I've seen inside them !!:o)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ntc said:

If both fail your going down like a dart :ph34r:

Hi Neil,

not quite a dart but more like an arrow.   From about 30,000ft a decent modern airliner should be able to glide about 100 mile (ish) with favourable conditions.

The space shuttle did a bit more.

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, foster461 said:

I would be worried about the heat from the engine fire melting the alu wing or igniting the fuel in the wing tanks. Captain Kirk would have ejected the starboard nacelle.

The airflow would easily keep the temp down. There are no flames shooting out the back as per a serious engine fire.

I would be more concerned about the out of balance engine wobbling on the pylon.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil,

From 30,000 feet you can glide a Grand piano in, the trade off between height x speed gives a lot of distance. If you lose wings ...well that's a different story.

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Neil...take heart...

In 2001 a plane carrying 293 passengers and 13 crew lost power in both its engines over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Unbeknown to the pilots of Air Transat Flight 236, the aircraft bound for Lisbon had been leaking fuel ever since it left Toronto six hours earlier. Having lost the first of two engines, Captain Robert Piche declared a fuel emergency and announced to Air Traffic Control his intention to divert to the Azores. Ten minutes later the second engine sputtered to a stop.

Piche and his first officer, Dirk DeJager, with more than 20,000 hours of flight experience between them, proceeded to glide the Airbus A330, without any power, for 19 minutes – covering some 75 miles – until landing hard at Lajes Air Base.

The plane, which was forced to perform a series of turns and one full circle to lose the necessary altitude, bounced on the runway before coming to a stop. No lives were lost and the incident remains the furthest flown by a passenger jet without engine power in aviation history.

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar experience (an engine blowing up just after take off) back in the late 70s. The difference was, we were in. 747 and with very little drama it circled to dump fuel and the landed back at Singapore. 

Rgds Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually a failed engine is not a great problem as the remaining engines have sufficient power to fly

Engine fires look very scary but are usually brought under control.

However when it goes wrong it turns very quickly into a disaster.

On the 8th April 1968 a BOAC B707 had an engine failure ion take-off. This created a serious fire.  Very soon the engine actually fell off.

Upon landing the wing area continued to burn and very quickly got out of control.

Chaos on the flight deck and in the cabin ended up with a number of people dying including a hostess who went back into the cabin to help rescue a passenger.

She was awarded the GM for bravery.

In this case there were serious blunders in every part of the disaster including those on the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_712

 

Roger

PS - the BMI Kegworth crash was an engine fire that went wrong - they shut down the wrong engine.

The French Concorde crash was helped on its way when the flight engineer shut down #2 engine even though it was running perfectly.

The aircraft was overweight and need every pound of thrust - even when working properly.

Edited by RogerH
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, foster461 said:

This bit of the failed engine was made by Lucas

 

lucas.JPG

Indeed!   And "Origin UK", but a TY1904-02 Control Unit is from the Thrust Reverser mechanism, not the engine itself.     At least, as it is designated as an "Actuator Assy T R PDA" I assume that is what the T R stands for.      "PDA" can mean "Parts Departed Aircraft", which however ironic in this case cannot have been intended for "Bits That Fell Off".   No doubt Roger can inform us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

don't know much about engine components but Lucas are a big company in this arena.

As you point out it is for the thrust reverser. This could be bad news - a LaudaAir 767 deployed one reverser at altitude and crashed a few years back.

However having looked for the number I came across this       TY1904-50 Goodrich Actuation Systems Fan Cowl Actuator.   Now if this had a hissy fit then it may be that the airbleed for the big fan on the front shut off and caused a surge (too much air trying to get in). It doesn't usually take the cowling off.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial report from the NTSB is focused on a fan blade failure, similar to two previous incidents. All PW400-112 powered B777 aircraft are now grounded pending further investigation and inspections.

I learned very early on in my career in aviation to never gloat at issues experienced by your competitors as what goes around comes around.

Aviation is still the safest form of transportation by far per passenger-mile. It is also well recognised that over 90% of fatalities in aviation are caused by human error, one way or another. We are the weakest link.

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mick Forey said:

Initial report from the NTSB is focused on a fan blade failure, similar to two previous incidents. All PW400-112 powered B777 aircraft are now grounded pending further investigation and inspections.

I learned very early on in my career in aviation to never gloat at issues experienced by your competitors as what goes around comes around.

Aviation is still the safest form of transportation by far per passenger-mile. It is also well recognised that over 90% of fatalities in aviation are caused by human error, one way or another. We are the weakest link.

Mick

A fan blade failure ( the front rotating section) would give that shaking of the engine that can be seen.

Having a fan blade trying to go through the engine causes a great deal of damage - hence the fire etc

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.