- 31,100
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
Last edited:
Air Crash Thread: Boeing MAX and Other Problems
- Thread starter TenEightyOne
- 608 comments
- 33,016 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Indeed - I wasn't curious that it might be too heavy to take off, it's that it didn't appear to dump fuel before returning to KDEN.
EDIT: Here's the ATC of the mayday call (with an unsurprisingly pre-occupied pilot), unfortunately there's not enough to hear the conversation about souls-and-fuel, and dumping plans. From the pilot's tone of voice my guess would be that the plane was being landed immediately and that was that.
That looks a proper mess, incredible that nobody was hit by debris in either incident (EDIT: minor injuries to woman and child on ground - thanks for correcting me @Dennisch). And some of those blades would have been travelling pretty bloody quickly.
Last edited:
- 31,100
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
A woman and child were injured but nothing serious.
Barra333
Premium
- 6,447
- London, ON
- barra333
He sounded reassuringly calm through that though. I've read a bunch of air disaster summaries on reddit and it is crazy how often a survivable incident becomes deadly thanks to crew not following procedure or panicing.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
- 11,304
- Marin County
What exactly happened here? Looks like the turbine is still spinning.
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Some sort of failure blew the cowling apart. From the video we can't really tell where that failure was but it seems like the fan is intact. We also don't know when exactly this video was taken but we can hear from the audio that the passengers seem calm so I imagine it was at least a couple minutes after the failure. What we do know is that by this time the pilot have shut down the engine and its fuel - the fan is windmilling because the plane is flying at over 200kts and we see the flame die out slowly as residual fuel is burned off. Well I suppose we also know that the flame isn't supposed to be wear it is, it should be contained inside the combustion chamber, but we still don't know why it's leaking out. There could've been a compressor blade failure but the framerate of the video makes it hard to tell.
I'm curious why this plane ended up holding instead of immediately being vectored for the approach like the 777 was. In a four engine plan an engine failure is fairly benign but it still exposes the wing to further damage so as soon as that mayday call comes in, other planes should be broken off their approaches and sent elsewhere and this one should be brought in. Maybe the pilots chose to hold to configure the plane since they were so close to the landing airport. Does that timeline suggest the plane was in the air for an hour? That's ridiculous. Also, if it were headed to NYC then why did it take off and get vectored east? What a weird choice.
Edit: Stumbled on this site (I have no idea what site this is) while looking for departure procedures which I can't find. But I did find that apparently airplanes require a startup clearance at this airport? Is this typical in Europe?
What in tarnation? They expect me to sit there for several minutes running my avionics off the battery while they coordinate my taxi and flight plan? That's insane. In the US we don't start doing anything flight related until the engine is running and the avionics are on, we've heard the weather, and we've called for our clearance. Pilot requests are issued on our time, not ATC's. The exception is IFR clearances which have void times but that time limit is usually 10 minutes which is plenty of time for pilots to get settled and taxi when ready. In fact, "request taxi when ready" is a common phrase. The idea that almost anything is "shall-comply" as this is written is ridiculous, and the idea of reporting the probably duration of an indefinite delay makes no sense. What a weird set of procedures.
Edit: Found the 21 departure at the bottom of the page. As you plebs can see, the departure begins with a left turn toward EH319 and then a right turn to LNO VOR, after which the clearance or plan is flown.
Edit: In fact I can probably tell you where the failure happened based on that departure compared to the flight track. You can see they flew way past the right turn they should've made so I imagine the failure happened shortly after the left turn, forcing them to declare the emergency at which point they just continued straight until they sorted it out. And now the reason for the hold occurs to me as they probably had to both calculate their landing weight/distance for that runway and burn some fuel to meet it.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
All 777s of this type have been grounded. In the US this affects United Airlines, the only other operators are in Japan and South Korea. BBC.
Memory One is surely "switch the ****ing fuel off", I think this is oil lines that have been exposed.
There are a couple of differences with the 777 incident. It seems 777 the pilots did make an overweight landing without dumping fuel, which is why I was querying it's highly expeditious return. With the 747 it has Liege to the east, a heavy transport hub for FedEx and the like, it has 747 facilities and a much longer runway, and they could have had the opportunity to dump.
We're a lot more densely packed, it's usually a noise abatement procedure.
I think you'd start the APU though. If you weren't able to do that, or had no GPU, you'd request engine-start permission earlier. Some major internationals (like EGCC) don't even allow reverse thrust on landing, it's a constant struggle between airports and local populations over noise. Realistically the engine start is factored into commercial operation plans so there aren't any delays from that, but if you miss your slot to get out of the gate... you're stuck at the gate.
I've never flown in the USA except on VATSIM (ruthlessly realistic) but I can tell you that in Europe, until you open the throttles on the runway the Tower is king. And for some time after, if you really irritate them.
EDIT: 747 requested Liege specifically for overweight landing and enroute dump of 40 tons: ATC.
Memory One is surely "switch the ****ing fuel off", I think this is oil lines that have been exposed.
There are a couple of differences with the 777 incident. It seems 777 the pilots did make an overweight landing without dumping fuel, which is why I was querying it's highly expeditious return. With the 747 it has Liege to the east, a heavy transport hub for FedEx and the like, it has 747 facilities and a much longer runway, and they could have had the opportunity to dump.
We're a lot more densely packed, it's usually a noise abatement procedure.
I think you'd start the APU though. If you weren't able to do that, or had no GPU, you'd request engine-start permission earlier. Some major internationals (like EGCC) don't even allow reverse thrust on landing, it's a constant struggle between airports and local populations over noise. Realistically the engine start is factored into commercial operation plans so there aren't any delays from that, but if you miss your slot to get out of the gate... you're stuck at the gate.
I've never flown in the USA except on VATSIM (ruthlessly realistic) but I can tell you that in Europe, until you open the throttles on the runway the Tower is king. And for some time after, if you really irritate them.
EDIT: 747 requested Liege specifically for overweight landing and enroute dump of 40 tons: ATC.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I was on the 777 "Triple Seven" program from its inception through first few years of production. IMHO it was the best airplane program Boeing has ever had during my career, I think the plane you are thinking about is the 787 Dreamliner. That was a program with many flaws and woes.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I think, along with the 747, the 777 is one of the best planes made. The 787 is the Dreamliner, it has a common type rating with the 777, i.e. pilots of one type are automatically rated for the other, in theory. It had some issues with its onboard batteries early on but overall it's been a success, particularly given that it only sips fuel and therefore has an astonishing potential for economy. The industry needed a plane like that to be built, the question is whether or not Boeing regret being the people to do it.
This is a very early one, from the first order run of United 777s (number 5?), it has Pratt & Whitney 4000s, the 'hollow blade' engine. It's planes with this PW unit that have been grounded for blade inspections, United are the only US operator.
Which brings me to the cause - earlier it looked like just the nacelles had blown away but it seems this was indeed an uncontained blade failure. Not good.
EDIT: And there it is. Or partly isn't.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Judging solely from that one photo, it appears that the composite wing-to-body fairing was pierced. This is not to say it didn't continue on into the aluminum fuselage, although I don't think it did.
At the time, the diameter of the engine powering the 777 was the largest ever made. Uniquely, P&W went with a hollow fan blade, which seems not to have been the best idea. 777's made with that engine (and its bespoke strut) will likely face grounding and possibly extremely if not prohibitively costly redesign.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
I wonder what's up though. Because the 777 is one of the only planes that is certified with an ETOPS 330 rating (the only? no it looks like 787 is too, looks like since that article Airbus has at least one as well). It makes you wonder whether we're looking at a fluke, or something was wrong with that analysis.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
We can't be sure its ETOPS capability was compromised as it didn't have to cover that range as an emergency, but there's nothing to suggest it couldn't have completed that flight on that engine. This is definitely a P&W problem rather than a general 777 problem, and its still the plane I'd most choose to fly as a passenger. The bulk of US aircraft are GE and RR fitted, as @Dotini alluded too, those conventionally-bladed engines have far fewer problems iirc.
Barra333
Premium
- 6,447
- London, ON
- barra333
There would only be a couple of routes that require 180+ anyway. Crossing the South Pacific and South Atlantic mainly. Even Australia-US might be OK for alternates within 180min (Syd-New Calendonia-Fiji-Hawaii-LA). Fiji-Hawaii might be a stretch. There is nothing between NZ/South America or Perth/South Africa worth considering. Even flights over the north pole would likely be OK, thanks to Russian military bases. not ideal but work in a pinch. I've spoken to a B777 captain who didn't like Toronto-Seoul because none of the emergency alternates were very appealing (snow, Russian military, North Korea)
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
My understanding is that the ETOPS rating is based on the frequency of engine failures. Of course that doesn't mean that engine failures won't ever happen. So this event might be completely anticipated by the statistics used to certify the plane for use with that rating. But... why would you ground the P&W fitted 777s if that were the case? Is this Boeing just jumping so that they don't repeat the MAX problem? Or is it because they think there's something unexpected in the particular way this failed? @Dotini seemed to imply that he thought there was an inherent problem with the design.
This article suggests that 3 P&W4000 engine failures have occurred "in recent years" (no idea what that means). But it also says that there are 24 such planes being grounded. Only 24 planes operating (albeit in a major downturn for the industry), but 3 failures in recent years? I mean, they only had (until the other day) roughly 48 of those engines in service at all. That's not a lot of engines to spread 3 failures across.
Luckily it seems like worst case scenario the P&W4000 gets swapped out with one of the other engines.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Yes and yes. They learned that it's better to make the conscious decision to ground and inspect them before the FAA does it. They'll have to do at least a visual inspection of these engines and probably x-ray the fan blades for signs of fatigue. My previous company got some planes grounded by the FAA and it was kind of a ****-show especially for us pilots. I was actually one of a group who happened to be in the hangar just in time to get a talking to by a FSDO inspector along with our boss. Needless to say, that fiasco basically destroyed all our pilots' confidence in operations.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
Yea it sounded like fan blade inspection was going to need to be increased. Maybe this failure can be predicted with a reduced inspection interval. Only someone with access to more data about the 3 failures "in recent years" could answer that question. If the denver flight had just been inspected, it wouldn't bode well.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The opposite would be an expected failure, so naturally it was (literally speaking) unexpected, only Boeing/P&W/United know if they feel this engine had an inspection recently enough that this failure is particularly worrisome. And it seems to be.
Looking at the video and then the picture of the nacelle lip I'm not sure that the blade left through the engine side, I think the broken piece cut the nacelle lip and then (inevitably) the whole cowling was smashed open by the airflow (see video at top of this page, then the nacelle pic below), but either way it's still a Very Bad Thing. I think this is the third blade failure (if that's what it turns out to be) on a PW-40xx engine, one occured on a United sister plane of the same batch, also bound for Honolulu, and another on a Japanese aircraft. Iirc the Japanese investigation found poor inspection practices at P&W, but I need to look that up.
On the whole it remains a very safe engine but (as @Dotini mentions) they may need to rethink the hollow blade design (or the strut design in order to retro-spec GE/RR engines) if they feel the failure rate is significantly higher than others. We still don't know what caused this but it's so early on the rollout that foreign objects can't be discounted at this point... but we'll know more after the metallurgical bods do their stuff.
EDIT: tree'd by you and @Keef as I thumped out my slow reply!
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
The opposite would be an expected failure, so naturally it was (literally speaking) unexpected, only Boeing/P&W/United know if they feel this engine had an inspection recently enough that this failure is particularly worrisome. And it seems to be.
Looking at the video and then the picture of the nacelle lip I'm not sure that the blade left through the engine side, I think the broken piece cut the nacelle lip and then (inevitably) the whole cowling was smashed open by the airflow (see video at top of this page, then the nacelle pic below), but either way it's still a Very Bad Thing. I think this is the third blade failure (if that's what it turns out to be) on a PW-40xx engine, one occured on a United sister plane of the same batch, also bound for Honolulu, and another on a Japanese aircraft. Iirc the Japanese investigation found poor inspection practices at P&W, but I need to look that up.
On the whole it remains a very safe engine but (as @Dotini mentions) they may need to rethink the hollow blade design (or the strut design in order to retro-spec GE/RR engines) if they feel the failure rate is significantly higher than others. We still don't know what caused this but it's so early on the rollout that foreign objects can't be discounted at this point... but we'll know more after the metallurgical bods do their stuff.
EDIT: tree'd by you and @Keef as I thumped out my slow reply!
Yea that wasn't the most graceful failure (though honestly... how graceful can it really get given that huge pieces of spinning metal are aimed at the fuselage). I didn't really mean that the failure itself was unexpected, but rather that the manner of failure was unexpected somehow given a failure.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
Isn't that basically what the aviation industry does constantly for like... everything? Swap, retrofit, re-certify, re-engineer, bandaid, inspect, polish?
"We need to come up with a fix for the wing damage from when the food truck smashed into the plane... let's get that engineered, retrofitted, re-certified, and back in the air"
Last edited:
- 11,304
- Marin County
Am I seeing things or did the fan blade fail at mid-length? That seems weird! I would think it would fail where it connects. Axial tension failures must be the rarest type!
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Is it because it's hollow? I have no idea, not a metallurgisticalator at all.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,981
- Mile High City
I wonder if that's not the blade that failed. That could be damage from debris. Some of the results of the failure often get projected forward and sucked back in to the engine (the blade next to it looks like it's missing).
Last edited:
