View Full Version : Holy shiite Batman.....jet engine falls apart over Denver
https://www.foxnews.com/us/plane-experiences-engine-trouble-and-drops-debris-over-colorado-lands-safely-at-dia
Big-azz pieces, is that called the engine cowling? Watch the video of the engine someone took from onboard the aircraft and the video someone took from the ground of the debris falling.
I think I'd need a change of underwear if I was on that plane!
Yeah, that uncontained engine failure would suck. Thank goodness no one in the air on on the ground got hurt.
What’s crazy was the hot section kept going. You could see it still igniting/burning.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yeah, that uncontained engine failure would suck. Thank goodness no one in the air on on the ground got hurt.
What’s crazy was the hot section kept going. You could see it still igniting/burning.
I'm not an aviation expert, so was the glowing orange area on the engine supposed to be like that? Obviously the outer covering was gone, but is that where a jet engine should be firing?
Good it didn't totally fall off the plane and take a chunk of wing with it, thereby rendering it unflyable.
Also, can't they shut off fuel supply to that engine to help prevent further ignition?
thepatriot2705
02-20-21, 18:32
I'm not an aviation expert, so was the glowing orange area on the engine supposed to be like that? Obviously the outer covering was gone, but is that where a jet engine should be firing?
Good it didn't totally fall off the plane and take a chunk of wing with it, thereby rendering it unflyable.
Also, can't they shut off fuel supply to that engine to help prevent further ignition?
Fuel was no doubt cut. That’s metal on fire.
I'm not an aviation expert, so was the glowing orange area on the engine supposed to be like that? Obviously the outer covering was gone, but is that where a jet engine should be firing?
Good it didn't totally fall off the plane and take a chunk of wing with it, thereby rendering it unflyable.
Also, can't they shut off fuel supply to that engine to help prevent further ignition?
https://www.britannica.com/technology/high-bypass-turbofan
Yes, that glowing is part of the core in the diagram above. No doubt the pilots got some feedback that they had a failure, but they may or may not have gotten a fire warning. Shutting off the fuel is part of the procedure and I’m positive it was done, but it may be a few seconds before it actually happens depending on their checklist.
What I’m really curious to know is if that plane had sat in long term storage for awhile during the last year when United started parking planes. My experience is these things don’t like sitting dormant for long periods of time, seals dry up, etc.
The_War_Wagon
02-20-21, 21:01
CAPTAIN: “Attention passengers – when we reach the ground, we’ll need everyone to evacuate quickly.”
ME: “TOO late – I’ve already run the checklist for THAT procedure!!!” 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
Crazy stuff, and a minor miracle nobody was killed!
Averageman
02-21-21, 10:50
My Brother and I flew from Tucson to Chicago to visit my Dad.
We were flying American and an American Flight was due to take off just as we were landing, that Jet lost an engine, flipped over in the air and crashed in to a glass factory just past the end of the runway, in full view of everyone in the Airport.
The intercom traffic explaining what had happened only made it worse.
We aborted that landing flew to Indianapolis, then Detroit and got in to Chicago an a hour and a half later.
Dad was damned happy to see us get off that flight.
Grand58742
02-21-21, 10:52
Those pilots have some serious balls. Coming in on a single engine at high elevation and undoubtedly overweight from the extra fuel needed to reach Hawaii?
Balls, yes. But a crew of B777 are senior crews with a ton of experience, flight time, and training. While every emergency is different, they knew what to do.
The plane was in the air for approximately 25 minutes after departing DEN and executing a 180 back to DEN. No doubt the aircraft was at or near max landing weight. DEN has a 16,000 ft runway but looking at FlightAware it appears they landed on the nearest runway (RWY07) instead of vectoring around to the long runway. Either way, it probably felt like they were flying a mountain to land.
Very fortunate this did not happen mid flight over the pacific...
Those pilots have some serious balls. Coming in on a single engine at high elevation and undoubtedly overweight from the extra fuel needed to reach Hawaii?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am no expert of passenger jets, but an engine falling apart or disintegrating reminds me of American 191 from 1979 where the entire engine separated from it's wing pylon, and the damage to the wing caused hydraulic failures. I wonder if modern flight control systems have redundancies if part of the system fails?
The plane was in the air for approximately 25 minutes after departing DEN and executing a 180 back to DEN. No doubt the aircraft was at or near max landing weight. DEN has a 16,000 ft runway but looking at FlightAware it appears they landed on the nearest runway (RWY07) instead of vectoring around to the long runway. Either way, it probably felt like they were flying a mountain to land.
Very fortunate this did not happen mid flight over the pacific...
I’m almost positive the airplane was grossly overweight when it landed. It ends up being a few more things for the mechanics to inspect after landing.
It almost would have been better if it was over the ocean as the parts would not have rained down over a fairly dense suburban area.
I am no expert of passenger jets, but an engine falling apart or disintegrating reminds me of American 191 from 1979 where the entire engine separated from it's wing pylon, and the damage to the wing caused hydraulic failures. I wonder if modern flight control systems have redundancies if part of the system fails?
They do. I’m not a 777 person but all primary flight control systems have at least 1 or 2 redundant sources, or a way to mix flight controls to get the desired outcome.
Balls, yes. But a crew of B777 are senior crews with a ton of experience, flight time, and training. While every emergency is different, they knew what to do.
The plane was in the air for approximately 25 minutes after departing DEN and executing a 180 back to DEN. No doubt the aircraft was at or near max landing weight. DEN has a 16,000 ft runway but looking at FlightAware it appears they landed on the nearest runway (RWY07) instead of vectoring around to the long runway. Either way, it probably felt like they were flying a mountain to land.
Very fortunate this did not happen mid flight over the pacific...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve flown to HI 4 times....that flight over the water always make me a little nervous....
Based on your username I’m assuming you’re a pilot?
Yeah, considering taxi time, a short 25 minutes in the air after departure, 250 people on board, and full load of gas for the long trip to HI, I’ll bet they were way heavy.
What are your thoughts on fuel dump? With the catastrophic failure and the engine still on fire and the urgency and ability to get it down at DEN and let the ARFF crews handle it on the ground, I suppose dumping wasn’t a viable option?
I dunno man... Mid pacific, engine on fire with it buffeting like it was in the video? Glad nobody was hurt on the ground but I’m thinking that plane and all on board could have really been in peril had this happened over the ocean.
OH58 - another accident that brought to light redundant (or not) systems was United 232 that crashed in Sioux City IA in 1989. DC-10 which the number 2 engine has a catastrophic failure that took out all the hydraulics. Amazing anyone survived that crash. What the crew did was absolutely incredible and heroic.
I’m almost positive the airplane was grossly overweight when it landed. It ends up being a few more things for the mechanics to inspect after landing.
It almost would have been better if it was over the ocean as the parts would not have rained down over a fairly dense suburban area.
They do. I’m not a 777 person but all primary flight control systems have at least 1 or 2 redundant sources, or a way to mix flight controls to get the desired outcome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m almost positive the airplane was grossly overweight when it landed. It ends up being a few more things for the mechanics to inspect after landing.
You must be referring to the full fuel load-out. It's 2900 nautical miles from Denver to Hawaii. I certainly can't see dumping fuel to reduce weight as an option with the exposed engine internals red hot. Too bad future modern jets won't have small cameras aerodynamically embedded in the fuselage so the flight crew could take a quick peek at the offending engine(s) and wing surface from the cockpit without relying on flight attendants or passengers for the visuals.
Grand58742
02-21-21, 16:12
I’ve flown to HI 4 times....that flight over the water always make me a little nervous....
London to Chicago during the winter was my worst. Looking down and seeing all that ice wasn't cool.
Based on your username I’m assuming you’re a pilot?
Yeah, considering taxi time, a short 25 minutes in the air after departure, 250 people on board, and full load of gas for the long trip to HI, I’ll bet they were way heavy.
What are your thoughts on fuel dump? With the catastrophic failure and the engine still on fire and the urgency and ability to get it down at DEN and let the ARFF crews handle it on the ground, I suppose dumping wasn’t a viable option?
You must be referring to the full fuel load-out. It's 2900 nautical miles from Denver to Hawaii. I certainly can't see dumping fuel to reduce weight as an option with the exposed engine internals red hot. Too bad future modern jets won't have small cameras aerodynamically embedded in the fuselage so the flight crew could take a quick peek at the offending engine(s) and wing surface from the cockpit without relying on flight attendants or passengers for the visuals.
I apologize as I’m not intimate with the 777, but believe it or not, a lot of airliners don’t have the ability to dump fuel. What they do have is the ability to land overweight, you just have to weigh the current risk vs getting the thing on the ground ASAP. I think they absolutely did the right thing given their circumstances and proximity to a giant airport/runway.
Like you mentioned above, I don’t know why they didn’t take the longest runway in DEN, I guess they ran the numbers and figured they didn’t need to.
Also in respect to dumping fuel, sometimes it has ill consequences:
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/03/802348782/i-don-t-believe-this-is-happening-911-call-reveals-chaos-after-delta-fuel-dump
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-21-21, 17:08
OH58 - another accident that brought to light redundant (or not) systems was United 232 that crashed in Sioux City IA in 1989. DC-10 which the number 2 engine has a catastrophic failure that took out all the hydraulics. Amazing anyone survived that crash. What the crew did was absolutely incredible and heroic.
Dennis Fitch was the dead-heading pilot that just happened to be a DC10 instructor that ended up being the throttle man on that flight. I went to school with his son. My dad knew a couple of guys who survived that flight- one of which had survived another airplane crash that had fatalities...
I am no expert of passenger jets, but an engine falling apart or disintegrating reminds me of American 191 from 1979 where the entire engine separated from it's wing pylon, and the damage to the wing caused hydraulic failures. I wonder if modern flight control systems have redundancies if part of the system fails?
I think this is the flight Averageman was talking about in his post on page 1. I remember hearing and reading about that. It was a DC-10 and one of the wing engines fell of during takeoff and it rendered the plane unflyable. Killed like 271 people.
fedupflyer
02-21-21, 17:59
Based on your username I’m assuming you’re a pilot?
Yeah, considering taxi time, a short 25 minutes in the air after departure, 250 people on board, and full load of gas for the long trip to HI, I’ll bet they were way heavy.
I doubt they had a full tank of gas. Probably more likely a half tank. I am educated guessing they did not even have fuel in the center tank.
Also guessing they were in the 520,000-550,000lb T/O weight range. Not really heavy for the 777.
a lot of airliners don’t have the ability to dump fuel. What they do have is the ability to land overweight,
777 can dump and land overweight.
The more the descent rate at touch down, the more the rate the more inspections have to be done.
Averageman
02-21-21, 18:19
I think this is the flight Averageman was talking about in his post on page 1. I remember hearing and reading about that. It was a DC-10 and one of the wing engines fell of during takeoff and it rendered the plane unflyable. Killed like 271 people.
I believe you are right.
My brother wanted the window seat, like any other ten year old. He saw the whole thing and started yelling when it crashed. The Flight Attendant ran back leaned over me and slammed the window down and said "Clam him down."
I asked for a whiskey and got several.
I believe you are right.
My brother wanted the window seat, like any other ten year old. He saw the whole thing and started yelling when it crashed. The Flight Attendant ran back leaned over me and slammed the window down and said "Clam him down."
I asked for a whiskey and got several.
I don't know if I could fly [un-drugged] ever again if I actually saw that happen as 10yo kid. I'd have been a drivin' mofo for most of my life after that!
Averageman
02-21-21, 18:36
I don't know if I could fly [un-drugged] ever again if I actually saw that happen! I mean a 10yo kid seeing that? I'd have been a drivin' mofo for most of my life after that!
Well he did lose his mind, after 20 years in the Army and retiring an E-8, he became a Sherriff's Deputy, because he just hadn't had enough BS yet.
I’ve flown to HI 4 times....that flight over the water always make me a little nervous....
Read up on ETOPS- Extended Twin Operations. The commercial aircraft has to be certified as capable of flying the total distance on just one of its engines. You are actually safer in modern 2 engine commercial aircraft than you were in the old 3 and 4 engine aircraft. 50% less risk of engine failure in a twin than in an older 4 engine aircraft, and the old aircraft needed far more engines running to maintain flight.
So says the guy who has made emergency engine-out landings twice in piston aircraft, one a crash, and survived a helicopter crash landing. LOL
I've lived through so many close calls and things that should have been fatal though, that while I don't go hopping around on ledges of tall buildings, I have truly come to believe that a man born to hang will not drown.
Read up on ETOPS- Extended Twin Operations. The commercial aircraft has to be certified as capable of flying the total distance on just one of its engines. You are actually safer in modern 2 engine commercial aircraft than you were in the old 3 and 4 engine aircraft. 50% less risk of engine failure in a twin than in an older 4 engine aircraft, and the old aircraft needed far more engines running to maintain flight..
I was hoping someone would bring this up. A family friend is was 777-qualified before his retirement. I remember him talking about the aircraft being able to safely fly with just one engine and be able to complete the full flight safely on the remaining engine. I'd go jump on a 777 tomorrow if i was flying overseas, same with a 737 Max flown by qualified US or European pilots. I've been inside of a 787, awesome airplane too.
Not if it’s a Pratt & Whitney powered B777. The FAA issued and Air Worthiness Directive today grounding them. Lol.
I'd go jump on a 777 tomorrow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fedupflyer
02-21-21, 22:01
The commercial aircraft has to be certified as capable of flying the total distance on just one of its engines.
That is not correct. ETOPS is based on time not distance.
ETOPS is also not based on the total distance from origination to destination but based on the time away from enroute diversion airports.
Most common are ETOPS-120 and ETOPS-180.
Meaning, if you are using ETOPS-120, you have to be with 120 mins of a diversion airport.
I was hoping someone would bring this up. A family friend is was 777-qualified before his retirement. I remember him talking about the aircraft being able to safely fly with just one engine and be able to complete the full flight safely on the remaining engine. I'd go jump on a 777 tomorrow if i was flying overseas, same with a 737 Max flown by qualified US or European pilots. I've been inside of a 787, awesome airplane too.
I've flown 767s and several Airbus variants. I still fly over the Pacific ocean all of the time on two engines. It's no big deal. We practice this engine failure scenario a couple of times a year in the simulator. It's just a bad day at the office for us when it happens. I've actually lost an engine out over the water once years ago. Yeah, it's a different experience but you resort to your training just like you would when you get shot at.
As for the video... All of the flammable fluids were cut off from the engine. There are metal, rubber and plastics still in the nacelle that will burn off. It will burn it's self out eventually. The engine was spinning in the wind. It was not running. The engines are designed so they could theoretically burn off and depart the plane if need be. The plane will still fly. Yes, they dumped fuel and landed. If you can't understand why the dumped fuel didn't torch, I won't be able to explain it here... Lets just say it has to do with 150 MPH wind blowing the fuel away from the fire. The dump valves are well behind the engines for obvious reasons.
As for over the ocean, it's called ETOPS. Yeah, we practice that too. Every flight is actually planed with an engine failure critical scenario built in "just in case". If we lose an engine at the 1/2 way point 1000 miles from shore, we can still make it to an airport. All in a days work.
Just a bad day at the office. The next time you complain about airline pilots making too much money, think about what happened here. The plane landed safely and no one died. Do you want a highly trained and experienced pilot, or someone that was hired on the cheap...
Averageman
02-22-21, 10:31
Weren't Bombers flow to Europe by shutting off two of four engines to gain range and conserve fuel.
I believe someone in my early education explained this to me..
Grand58742
02-22-21, 12:19
Weren't Bombers flow to Europe by shutting off two of four engines to gain range and conserve fuel.
I believe someone in my early education explained this to me..
I wouldn't doubt it, but they also had a lot of air routes into Europe and Africa during the war with a lot of stops along the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II
Forget all the other speculations, guesses, etc.
Watch this video of a pilot describing the video and communications between ATC and the United crew, line by line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Wler87pwY
Just a bad day at the office. The next time you complain about airline pilots making too much money, think about what happened here. The plane landed safely and no one died. Do you want a highly trained and experienced pilot, or someone that was hired on the cheap...
Who complains about pilot or even attendant pay? Its those corksoakers in charge of the airlines I have problems with.
Andy
Forget all the other speculations, guesses, etc.
Watch this video of a pilot describing the video and communications between ATC and the United crew, line by line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Wler87pwY
Agent Jayz has a problem with "uncontained" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQwaqDe3jio
He's been repairing aircraft and marine turbines for 20 years.
Also, my go-to for analysis of mishaps like this is Blancolirio -- Juan Browne, a 777-300 pilot and straight shooter:
Initial report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkieg1ZFcPE
Followup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwNCCrjMmeg
Forget all the other speculations, guesses, etc.
Watch this video of a pilot describing the video and communications between ATC and the United crew, line by line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Wler87pwY
Damn good video for us non-aviation folks. Very informative.
That is not correct. ETOPS is based on time not distance.
ETOPS is also not based on the total distance from origination to destination but based on the time away from enroute diversion airports.
Most common are ETOPS-120 and ETOPS-180.
Meaning, if you are using ETOPS-120, you have to be with 120 mins of a diversion airport.
Quite right. Good catch. I was thinking time but typed miles.
When the 777 was new (so earlier models) I saw a cool show on the Discovery channel or one of those channels about it. They stressed that the engines developed enough thrust so that just one was needed to do a take off fully loaded. (For the case of engine failure on take off past the time when they can abort). These modern engines and planes are marvels.
Crap happens. There is no way to reduce risk to the point of absolutely no risk. 777 have enough hours behind them to show they are a safe aircraft. They'll figure this out, make whatever adjustments in inspections or whatever they decide, and we'll go on. If we could open up international flying, I'd fly another 777 to Japan in a heartbeat.
I'll go slightly off topic here. I'm a huge aircraft fanatic, I've been on a few airliners, mostly within the CONUS. There was a period of time when I was quite broke and not able to travel, take vacation or buy guns. Among the Boeings, I've been on the 707, 17, 27, 37, 47, 57 and 67. But I've never been on the 77 and 87. Hell I didn't even know about the triple 7 and the 787 until maybe 5 or 6 years ago. When I first heard about them I thought the 777 was new buy it's been around for at least a dozen years before I found out. I was looking forward to fly on them, then last year I found that Delta was retiring the 777. Now I would have to fly overseas to experience the 77 and 87. Ok, enough of my plane fetish.
Coal Dragger
02-22-21, 19:42
I've flown 767s and several Airbus variants. I still fly over the Pacific ocean all of the time on two engines. It's no big deal. We practice this engine failure scenario a couple of times a year in the simulator. It's just a bad day at the office for us when it happens. I've actually lost an engine out over the water once years ago. Yeah, it's a different experience but you resort to your training just like you would when you get shot at.
As for the video... All of the flammable fluids were cut off from the engine. There are metal, rubber and plastics still in the nacelle that will burn off. It will burn it's self out eventually. The engine was spinning in the wind. It was not running. The engines are designed so they could theoretically burn off and depart the plane if need be. The plane will still fly. Yes, they dumped fuel and landed. If you can't understand why the dumped fuel didn't torch, I won't be able to explain it here... Lets just say it has to do with 150 MPH wind blowing the fuel away from the fire. The dump valves are well behind the engines for obvious reasons.
As for over the ocean, it's called ETOPS. Yeah, we practice that too. Every flight is actually planed with an engine failure critical scenario built in "just in case". If we lose an engine at the 1/2 way point 1000 miles from shore, we can still make it to an airport. All in a days work.
Just a bad day at the office. The next time you complain about airline pilots making too much money, think about what happened here. The plane landed safely and no one died. Do you want a highly trained and experienced pilot, or someone that was hired on the cheap...
The only people complaining about how much you get paid are the shit heels in charge of airlines. Just like my industry hates their employees and would love to pay us nothing and take away all quality of life, or replace us with robots; so would yours.
It infuriates your CEO (and mine) that the public won’t accept unmanned aircraft (or trains), and that there is exposure to legal liability if they implement such an action.
The only people complaining about how much you get paid are the shit heels in charge of airlines. Just like my industry hates their employees and would love to pay us nothing and take away all quality of life, or replace us with robots; so would yours.
It infuriates your CEO (and mine) that the public won’t accept unmanned aircraft (or trains), and that there is exposure to legal liability if they implement such an action.
I hear you. I'm glad I'm looking at forced retirement in 10 years. Let's face it, it WILL be robots or computers doing the operating 50 years from now. It has become inevitable. It will take one person in a control center to monitor 20 automated aircraft or trains at a time.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your computer speaking. Welcome to the next level of safety. Flight time today will be be be be be be be be.....
Coal Dragger
02-23-21, 02:39
LOL, yep. One of those careful what you wish for scenarios. Taking all the safety and operating flexibility margins out of the operation to maximize profits under ideal conditions is what they want. The problem is every time what used to be a minor issue or deviation from “normal” is now a major service interruption because appropriate staffing, maintenance, and equipment levels “cost too much”. Meanwhile a handful of service issues cost as much as doing the right thing would have, with the added negative of pissing off customers and the remaining employees.
hotrodder636
02-23-21, 05:58
That’s what people don’t understand...like in my industry, pilots aren’t paid for the normal days...they are paid to respond, calmly and smartly during emergencies where lives are at stake.
Who complains about pilot or even attendant pay? Its those corksoakers in charge of the airlines I have problems with.
Andy
Averageman
02-23-21, 12:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMIpXD46_eU
Here is the Chicago crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMIpXD46_eU
Here is the Chicago crash.
I watched that video, it's pretty interesting. LOL at the thumbnail, though... 191 didn't crash anywhere near the ramp.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.