Holy shiite Batman.....jet engine falls apart over Denver

[Sam]

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

[AndyLate]

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

[caporider]

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

[ABNAK]

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.

[CrashAxe]

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.

[chadbag]

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.

[Sam]

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]

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.

[Det-Sog]

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]

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.