View Full Version : 747 engine falls off


holyflyer
21st Oct 2004, 12:53
Cargo Plane Completes Flight Despite Engine Falling Off

WFTV POSTED: 6:58 am EDT October 21, 2004

CHICAGO -- Even minus a little engine that could, this cargo plane did.


A cargo plane from Chicago landed safely at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after dropping an engine somewhere over Michigan.

The Kalitta Air jet took off from O'Hare International Airport late Wednesday and was bound for New York's Kennedy International Airport when it reported mechanical problems with one of its engines, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said.

The Boeing 741-R was able to fly but was diverted as a safety precaution to Detroit, where it landed without incident, FAA officials said. No one was injured.

After the landing, airline personnel discovered the engine was completely gone, FAA officials said.

Michigan authorities searched Thursday for the engine, which may have fallen into Lake Michigan, the FAA said.



A-FLOOR
21st Oct 2004, 13:44
Seems they have some experience flying three-engined 747s:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/224038/L

BTW: Read the caption; this one was intentional, although it does say a crack in the no.3 engine mount was found in HNL. I guess the same happened here, only they didn't find out before they took off from ORD.

Still, good riddens it happened on their way to JFK and not during the next leg over the Atlantic :ooh:

Flap 5
21st Oct 2004, 13:48
Well I suppose if an engine is going to fail better to get rid of it completely. It's only dead weight after all. := :uhoh:

CATIIIBnoDH
21st Oct 2004, 15:44
Brings back memories of that awful day that an EL-AL 747 had an engine failure after t/o from Amsterdam. In that case the engine also left the wing and damaged the wing LE. During approach back to Amsterdam the crew lost control and the freighter crashed into an appartment building.

The Kalitta crew was lucky.javascript:smilie(':ok:')

My names Turkish
21st Oct 2004, 15:59
Is this not press pack sensationalism?

I seem to recall that in the event of a fire that the bolts holding the engine Pod to the mountings were designed to fail and let the engine drop away?

Captain104
21st Oct 2004, 16:06
Errrhmmm....AMS 0ct. 92

Story a bit different.

From Air Disaster com:
Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft's no.3 engine separated from the wing, tearing out the leading edge slats and the no.4 engine when it did so. The trailing edge flaps on the right wing were also severely damaged. As the crew began to slow the airplane as they turned onto final, the right wing began to stall due to the lack of leading and trailing edge devices. Slowing through 160 knots with the flaps extended to 25, the right wing entered a deep stall and the crew lost control of the airplane. The 747 impacted an apartment building in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam at nearly a vertical nose down attitude. Corroded pins within the engine pylon caused the engine to separate.

regards

redtail
21st Oct 2004, 16:16
PPrune thread with link to local news with pictures (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149200)

WHBM
21st Oct 2004, 16:22
There have been a number of cases over the years of engines falling off 747s.

What surprises me about this is the high percentage of cases where this happens to a cargo 747F, when these are in the minority of the overall 747 fleet (and probably less intensively utilised as well). What is it about carrying cargo that seems to increase the chances of this ? It's not anything in the basic 747F design as a number where this has occurred were ex-passenger aircraft, and it has always been passenger versions that reached the highest number of hours.

A-FLOOR
21st Oct 2004, 16:40
Because keeping one's aircraft in tip-top shape seems to be of lesser importance when you're flying boxes instead of passengers. EPR/EGT limits exceeded? Oil leak? Hard landing? Heavy turbulence? Well boxes don't complain do they? The worst that usually happens is a tech stop or a precautionary landing, and only when one flies live animals or perishables does the time taken to delivery really matter.

Too bad sometimes things really do go very badly wrong.... The Bijlmerramp is an excellent example. :*

Not too long ago one of those white CAL/El-Al freighters we get frequently at SPL blew some tyres on takeoff from JFK and when it put the gear down on approach into SPL 06 it lost some bits of its wing-to-body fairing over a populated area. Just another day in the polder, I guess :rolleyes:

Ranger One
21st Oct 2004, 17:28
My names Turkish:

I seem to recall that in the event of a fire that the bolts holding the engine Pod to the mountings were designed to fail and let the engine drop away?

Negative, Turkish. The fuse pins are primarily there to allow the pod to detach in the event of an overstress - as in the Anchorage incident, where an Evergreen freighter (747-100???) lost an engine in the climb, in exceptionally severe turbulence. They're stainless steel, IIRC - much less likely than the airframe to melt in a fire!

R1

steamchicken
21st Oct 2004, 17:56
What, that lever isn't the ENGINE JETTISON control? always wondered why it's not on the checklist.....

atlast
21st Oct 2004, 18:44
WHBM: It's not cycles; the main difference between Freighters and PAX birds are the heavy weight flights. Freighters routinely take off at MGW and land close to MLW whereas with PAX birds these upper limits are visited less frequently. It's a tough life as a Freighter.

A-FLOOR
21st Oct 2004, 18:54
Then why do I never see a Lufthansa, Cathay, Northwest, Atlas or JAL 747-200F lose any bits? :confused:

747CLASSIC
21st Oct 2004, 19:03
Fuse Pins-Designed so that if an engine seizes with all the turning mass inside the engine that it seperates at the pylon and departs than to take the entire wing off!
atlast is correct-freighters routinely takeoff at max weights and land at max weights.

classic

Atlanta-Driver
21st Oct 2004, 19:31
A-Floor.

Your knowledge on these matters seem to be somewhat limited. Why not think what you type before you type and end up looking like a doorknob.

Just to refresh your memory:

Quote

Because keeping one's aircraft in tip-top shape seems to be of lesser importance when you're flying boxes instead of passengers. EPR/EGT limits exceeded? Oil leak? Hard landing? Heavy turbulence? Well boxes don't complain do they? The worst that usually happens is a tech stop or a precautionary landing, and only when one flies live animals or perishables does the time taken to delivery really matter.

Unquote

To your information rules are the same for freight and PAX. Reading your comments make me happy that I fly mostly boxes.

AD

ferrydude
21st Oct 2004, 19:39
On which panel is the "Engine in Transit" Light?

A-FLOOR
21st Oct 2004, 19:51
To your information rules are the same for freight and PAX.I know the rules are the same. The point is whether some cargo-only operators operate to the same standards their PAX and mixed counterparts do, or perhaps maybe not.

Since you "fly boxes" you might as well comment on the point I put forth in my post instead of saying I'm a doorknob for being a bit emotional. :ok:

catchup
21st Oct 2004, 19:58
rules are the same for freight and PAX


Which rules?

You are kidding! Aren't you?

regards

lead zeppelin
21st Oct 2004, 20:49
Eerily similar to the AA DC-10 in Chicago in 1979........structural failures of any sort are serious......

ballpoint
21st Oct 2004, 22:18
Gentlemen,

I believe all of these incidents have been with P&W JT-9 engines.
Is there anyone who can point out what kind of fault makes these engines detach from the pylon?
Could turbine seizure be a probable cause? I can recall that this has been an issue in the past with Pratts. How is that nowadays?

Regards,

Ballpoint.

spannersatcx
21st Oct 2004, 22:35
WHBM
and probably less intensively utilised as well PMSL, :)
you have got to be joking, we are flying the r s' off ours and have been for a long time, most utilised a/c in the fleet. And you can explain that to the wife who never sees me because of them being used so much.

spuis
21st Oct 2004, 22:38
I remember a BA survey were an old B747classic freshly painted was being compared with a two year old B747-400.
All the passengers wanted to fly the classic, as it looked much more reliable.


That might suggest the opposite to previous speakers, as maintenance will not waist time on painting, but instead maintaining freighter a/c.

Spuis

gas path
21st Oct 2004, 22:47
I believe all of these incidents have been with P&W JT-9 engines.
The front bulkhead of the pylon had several SB's over the years with additional inspections for cracking and fastener looseness. I think Pan Am had the dubious honour of dropping the first one following a landing at LHR in the '80s'

keel beam
21st Oct 2004, 22:55
Just for info:

B747 engines were designed to break off in the event of a crash landing, the engines are suppose to flip over the wing (possibly doing a one and a half turn twisting pike). After the El Al incident it was decided that perhaps the engines were better staying on the wing and all B747s went through a mod programme. For this incident I'll speculate on the pylon cracking until it couldn't hold the engine any longer. I would not be suprised if the 'pins' were still on the A/C.

Good news though that there were no reported casualties.

lomapaseo
21st Oct 2004, 23:16
Fuse Pins-Designed so that if an engine seizes with all the turning mass inside the engine that it seperates at the pylon and departs than to take the entire wing off!

You got the right idea but the wrong specification. Engine seizure is not a design parameter for sizing these pins. The pins, in the pylon, are sized against aircraft loads (gusts, flutter, etc.).

The engine mounts against the engine, are sized for the anticipated results of a (single failure condition) fan blade off, and the aircraft designer simply ensures that the blade-off load will not exceed the specified design margin already incorporated in the pin.

A little confusing, but the pin may still fail if other conditions are present.

speed freek
21st Oct 2004, 23:26
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 747s have a bit of history with shall we say 'premature' separation of parts. For example, one BA Classic 747 on approach into somewhere in the states, the PNF selects Flap what-ever, and gets in response half the trailing edge of one of the wings missing!! :oh: Best bit was the flap section landed on some poor blokes brand new car. Bloody good thing he wasn't in it. Anybody else know of such cases?

Btw, I'm not bringing doom and gloom over the poor ol' birds. Theres probably 200 classic 74s, at least, airborne at this very moment, and in, what my doctor would argue, better shape than I'm in!!

mymymy
21st Oct 2004, 23:31
From viewing the pix in the slideshow, looks like the engine caused significant damage to the leading edge when it departed the aircraft.
I think they're lucky this incident wasn't more serious.

3my

atlast
22nd Oct 2004, 00:53
The CF6 has had it's share of premature departures too. Atlas has left one in a back yard in Guayaquil (Sp)! I believe but can't confirm, that LH landed and had one half hanging off in the late '70's. Other factors of Freighters VS Pax 74's is that because of the higher weights, the freighters usually cruise at lower altitudes, encountering more turbulent air. Some freighters are certified to land at 302K vs 285K. It all adds up to, more weight, more all around stress across the whole flight envelope. It seems to me too that the Freighter is usually more heavily utilised ( no pun intended!)

kansasw
22nd Oct 2004, 01:11
Fuse Pins-Designed so that if an engine seizes with all the turning mass inside the engine that it seperates at the pylon and departs than to take the entire wing off!

Makes perfect sense.

atlast is correct-freighters routinely takeoff at max weights and land at max weights.

Is this different from pax flights, and if so why?

I can understand that pax flights may be heavily or lightly loaded due to commercial demand but would still think that many operate full (ideal economically for the carrier, ja?) and wouldn't this be likely to be in the neighborhood of MTOW? and so I think it fair to think that many pax flights routinely takeoff at max weights. Unless pax and/or their baggage are thrown overboard in flight, weight issues are not too different as far as I can tell. Difference between Take Off Weight and Landing Weight should mostly be Fuel Burn, whether payload is Freight or SLF.

Happy for correction, myself simple SLF.

atlast
22nd Oct 2004, 02:39
Kansasw
Rough Wags : 400SLF @<hidden> 200lb with 100lbs bags each = 120,000lbs or 54,545 kg assuming no belly freight.

Freighter load just taken MXP to ORD: 92,000kg with 126,000kg of fuel.

Also bear in mind, less fuel required for the PAX bird as they're not as heavy.

On top of all that, we still managed a slightly reduced thrust takeoff just for the pleasure of seeing the end of the runway more clearly!(TIC)

74tweaker
22nd Oct 2004, 02:51
Just asking - as I don't have first hand knowledge, but what is the maintenance like at Kalitta? I havn't heard of them having many incidents or accidents. I would assume it's on the better side of the fence.

Another thing is that we need to wait and see what caused this. The El-Al plane lost the engine as the fuse pins had massive corrosion. They were weakened to the point that they couldn't stay on. After this Boeing redesigned the pins, pylons, and maintenance program and that seemed to fix the problem. This could be anything from a bad repair, bad maintenance, design fault, turbulance, etc.... We simply need more info at this point.

lomapaseo
22nd Oct 2004, 03:17
I believe all of these incidents have been with P&W JT-9 engines.
Is there anyone who can point out what kind of fault makes these engines detach from the pylon?
Could turbine seizure be a probable cause? I can recall that this has been an issue in the past with Pratts. How is that nowadays?

Regards,

Ballpoint.

All such incidents have been aircraft problems. Turbine seizure has never resulted in such an event

747CLASSIC
22nd Oct 2004, 03:23
74tweaker

You must joking. I do believe Connie has cleaned up his act in recent years, only because he had to. I do remember about 10 years ago that the feds shut him down because of maintenance.
Just ask some of the guys that used to work for him.
I do know of two 727 crews that were fired because they wouldn't take an aircraft that had a bad igniter box. He wanted them to start an engine that had a good box then remove it from the running engine and put it on the engine with the bad box. Heard another story where he put his girlfriend in the right seat of a DC-8 for a scheduled cargo flight. The Capt of the flight didn't find out until after they got to CRZ that all she had was a PPL! I can go on and on about Connie.
Years ago, after Evergreen dropped an engine over ANC I held one of the fuse pins in my hand that was on that engine pylon. It did not fail at the fuse pin like it was designed to do. I think this played a big part in the pylon mods that were required of 74's after that.
Just a note; I believe when an engine departs the aircraft (because it at power) it usually goes up and over the top of the wing taking out the leading edges in that area.

classic

Ignition Override
22nd Oct 2004, 06:31
A-Floor, I know very little about 747s, but an FO I've flown with flew Connie Kallita Learjets for five years, and a guy who retired from Uncle Sam flew Kallita DC-8s just before he came here. It took all three crewmembers and a mechanic one night to convince Connie face-to-face that the elevator hydraulic pressure was inop; D. told me that the plane would never have rotated. If your Learjet engine flamed out at Connie, you descended and restarted it. If you declared an emergency-you were fired.

Of course the regulations are the same. Compliance and enforcement at some freight airlines, supporting the Captain's decisions, can be a totally different matter, and in the US this is not a secret among civilian pilots.

I also chatted a while at our layover hotel in Buffalo, New York with a gent who flew Tornados in either the German Marine or Luftwaffe. He then flew various smaller cargo jets and DC-6s on the East Coast (would not tell me the companys' names) before his present job. When a DC-6 engine caught fire, the crew never told the tower about it, even after tower asked about the excessive smoke/flames. They might have been terminated by their employer (?). Ask me if you want the phone numbers for the former Connie Learjet Captain (J) or the former DC-8 FO (D). I'll e-mail them to you.

747FOCAL
22nd Oct 2004, 07:50
Lets not forget Connie of old getting his license yanked for repossesing a DC-9 and soloing it home. Or the time at Hamilton where he was unhappy with the bill and went in the hanger and fired up the engines. A&P's diving off the wings cause he was Leavin...............:E

A-FLOOR
22nd Oct 2004, 08:11
Is that why he started painting his 747 fleet real nice in recent years? :D ;)

I do know that when a 747 engine must leave the wing for whatever reason, the pylon is designed in such a way that it goes "nose first", with one of the front bolts failing first, giving the engine a forward moment of inertia with which in turn shears off on of the rear bolts, and the engine then falls away from the aircraft. Although this indeed went tragically wrong in the El-Al case, I do think on this Kalitta flight things happened like they were supposed to, judging from how little damage was actually done to the leading edge flaps (only the number 5 flap is slightly damaged looking at the pictures... all others are perfectly okay).

You could argue that on the Kalitta flight they were retracted when the engine departed the wing (as opposed to those on LY1862).

Ignition Override // 747FOCAL

Thanks for that :) Next time I see one of Mr. Kalitta's aircraft at AMS I can guarantee you your anecdotes are what I'm thinking of :ooh:

lomapaseo
22nd Oct 2004, 14:26
When the engine leaves the wing under power they fly up due to lift loads on the inlet (the cross section is somewhat of an airfoil) and snap to the right due to gyroscopic action. For engines on the port wing they end up missing the inboard wing, while on the starboard side, the #3 engine intersects the #4 engine and the wing LE between the #3 and 4. Both for the B747 and the B707

The aircraft designer who designs the inlet can affect the lift action but there's not much you can do about the gyro loads .

BTW, catastrophic engine failures typically stop the fan fast enough that very little lift occur (inlet spillage) and no gyro loading, so expect the engine to fall away.

One could expect some differences if the fuel is interrupted several seconds before the engine is totally released. Thus the time-line sequence of separation could play a part.

Dengue_Dude
22nd Oct 2004, 17:41
I'm delighted that everyone was safe.

That said, I've been flying round for years on 3 engines, DC10, L1011 - no sweat!

Every landing is asymmetric!!

I'm not sure I like the idea of a design that's predicated on dumping a bit of the aircraft that's failed. Yes the engine IS dead weight but there's less collateral damage leaving it where the designers wanted it.

Shame they don't have that system for difficult pax!

As for the CF6 - what an engine, superb and virtually unburstable.

Prior to that I was confirmed RR but must admit the CF6 is much less temperamental in operation.

GlueBall
22nd Oct 2004, 18:46
ballpoint: not exclusively limited to P&W motors. As you may recall that on May 25, 1979 at ORD, engine No.1 came unglued and rotated over the wing of a GE powered DC-10-10. In the mid 90s a Rolls Royce RB211 had separated from a TriStar after takeoff at MIA.

Engine separation has more to do with maintenance (corrosion/metal fatigue) of pylons and attach fittings, rather than engines. Pylons, attach fittings, bolts, thrust links and engine nacelles/cowlings are airframe parts.

fesmokie
22nd Oct 2004, 20:58
Just for those interested, During climb the engine did seize after The Big Bang !!! it then departed the aircraft, as it should.

747CLASSIC
23rd Oct 2004, 00:12
I rest my case. More better for the engine and pylon to go than the entire wing-just as it is designed to do!
classic

lomapaseo
23rd Oct 2004, 03:42
Just for those interested, During climb the engine did seize after The Big Bang !!! it then departed the aircraft, as it should.



Facts please, please provide supporting facts or is this just hearsay

FoxHunter
23rd Oct 2004, 04:21
posted 22nd October 2004 05:31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A-Floor, I know very little about 747s, but an FO I've flown with flew Connie Kallita Learjets for five years, and a guy who retired from Uncle Sam flew Kallita DC-8s just before he came here. It took all three crewmembers and a mechanic one night to convince Connie face-to-face that the elevator hydraulic pressure was inop; D. told me that the plane would never have rotated. If your Learjet engine flamed out at Connie, you descended and restarted it. If you declared an emergency-you were fired.

Great story, but the DC8 has no hydraulics for the elevator, all cable.

fesmokie
23rd Oct 2004, 14:35
Oh lets just say a collegue operating that flight said thats what happened.

JW411
23rd Oct 2004, 15:26
lomapaseo:

The next move is yours of course but that looks very much like checkmate to me!

lomapaseo
23rd Oct 2004, 23:10
Oh lets just say a collegue operating that flight said thats what happened

Thanks for that, no doubt the log book contains different words and the interpretation by the investigators will be based on those words the DFDR and the condition of the engine when found.

The events to date have been associated with bangs followed by loss of N1. The historical reports of pilots throughout the total industry associate loss of N1 with rotor seizure, after all that is what they have been taught in the simulator. However in all such cases there was no inflight rotor seizure and the loss of N1 was found to be associate4d with loss of signal for any variety of reasons including rub out of the pickup by a damaged engine.

This is not to say that the rotor may not have been found seized upon landing, however the windmilling forces forces alone have keept it turning in the air.

There is still another possibility and that is that a catastrophic rupture of the engine just ahead of the rear mount that carries the torque loads would result in the engine pivoting about the front ball mount possibly pitching the inlet up into the airstream while the rotors in the engine are spooling down from the failure in the back. This has not happened yet due to an engine caused problem with the exception of a B747 pranging an engine on the runway during landing and leaving the engine on the runway with just the rear mount case still hanging from the pylon.

However, a couple of events with each of the engine models has come very close to severing this load path in the past.

I'll await the DFDR whether it shows a significant rate of drop of N1 or just a loss of signal.

BTW if anybody can confirm what's left on the pylon etc. it will put this event better in context with past history.

fesmokie
24th Oct 2004, 16:25
How bout this...After the Bang, all engine parameters went to Zero, except EGT and, the thrust lever jammed at climb power setting.

lomapaseo
24th Oct 2004, 18:47
How bout this...After the Bang, all engine parameters went to Zero, except EGT and, the thrust lever jammed at climb power setting.

Bingo

If the EGT was seen to rise it kind of suggests that the engine remained on the wing long enough to display.

Now the investigators should be looking for bits and pieces of anything left behind on the aircraft for their clues even without yet recovering the engine.

I would imagine that the investigation has learned lots more by now on the hows and whys.

I'll be looking for any photos that might show somthing interesting if they turn up on the net

patrickal
24th Oct 2004, 23:36
No word of someone finding a rather large piece of debris in their backyard or pool? I'm amazed no one has mentioned the risk of having one of these puppies fall from the sky and ruin your day.

Taikonaut
25th Oct 2004, 18:51
Hmm...big pool indeed. I think it's called Lake Michigan...;)

cw6
25th Oct 2004, 20:46
A- FLOOR,
Regarding why you don't see other carriers with bits missing from them.(and other things going wrong)

They do happen, and often.I was in LUX about 1 year ago and as CargoLux pushed back one main gear wheel seperated on the axle,no one's fault im sure just a floor in the material the axle was made from.Just imagine if that had fallen off over the town ? God help anyone hit by that ammount of weight !.

Lufthansa- just wrote off a 743 in the hanger by not following up the locking rings on the main jacks,they pivoted the whole aircraft on the tail steady and the nose, went to lunch and "wow , why has the fuselage got an 18 inch joggle in it ?)

CAL,- nose gear retraction in LGG.

Air Canada,- tipped the aircraft on it's arse.

You just need where to look !
Cheers .

:ok:

A-FLOOR
26th Oct 2004, 09:57
Cargolux - valid point

Lufthansa - That was a 742, and nothing "fell off"... just a mistake when jacking up the aircraft.

CAL @<hidden> LHR - Just an unexpected retraction of the nosegear that could happen on any other brand new 744... again nothing "fell off". The whole story complete with pictures is on PPRuNe.

Air Canada - The combi aircraft "tipped on its arse" through improper loading... once again nothing "fell off"

Still.... 1 out of 4 ain't bad :rolleyes:

CR2
26th Oct 2004, 11:36
The axle on CLX was due to a manufacturing flaw. On a brand new aircraft...

Willit Run
26th Oct 2004, 19:11
This is an excerpt from one of the crewmembers, however, it has been edited to remove names and correct some mis-spellings.


Took off
from ORD to JFK from 9R heading east, thru FL180 climbing to FL290 we
experienced a large bang and a sudden yaw to the left. Noticing all engine
parameters to zero, except EGT stuck at 825, and the #1 thrust lever stuck in
climb thrust position, the obvious was an engine loss. F/O was flying and
stabilized the aircraft and we continued the climb. Before accomplishing any
checklists, we assessed the situation, looked out the window and saw that #1
not only quit, it left the airframe! We then talked to ATC and confessed to an
emergency. #1 hyd's were gone, #1 main fuel tank was intact as far as we could
tell, and Capt and Engineer did the checklists.We finished the checklists and landed
without incident. Capt and F/O did an awesome job of handling the airplane
and the only thing we commented on collectively, was how long it took for the
flaps to extend using the alternate system. 0 to 5 took 10 mins. 5 to 25 took
2 mins. Company has been
supportive, and we're in EHAM enjoying a day off. We have our own assumption,
F/O pumped the throttle one too many times, flooded it out, and it backfired
thru the carbuerater...probably low lead fuel...fly safe!

fesmokie
26th Oct 2004, 19:59
There you have it... If more of these engines fell off into the LAKE or Ocean, maybe we would have LESS engine failures to deal with in the future. :}

DingerX
27th Oct 2004, 08:09
Now we wait for the headlines to roll in:

CREW OF DEATHRIDE FLIGHT SAYS PILOT 'FLOODED' ENGINE. DISASTER NARROWLY AVERTED.
Fuel contamination suspected. Witness on ground states, "He sounded like he took unleaded by mistake". Numerous reports of "knocks and pings" before major air disaster. Vicar's wife terrorized, again.

A-FLOOR
27th Oct 2004, 10:26
We have our own assumption,
F/O pumped the throttle one too many times, flooded it out, and it backfired
thru the carbuerater...probably low lead fuel...fly safe!Hahahah nice one :D :ok:

Sure hope they enjoyed their EHAM layover :} :p

wheelchock
30th Oct 2004, 09:27
MESSAGE NUMBER:1-RYR7F]
THE BOEING COMPANY

Service Request Data :

SERVICE REQUEST ID : 1-46910471
PRIORITY : Routine
ACCOUNT : BOEING CORRESPONDENCE (MOM)
DUE DATE : 05-Nov-2004 05:55:16 AM
PROJECT :
PRODUCT TYPE : Airplane
PRODUCT LINE : 747
PRODUCT : 747-100
ATA : 0240-00
PART NUMBER :


REFERENCES:


SUBJECT: Kalitta Air 747-100F N709CK Engine Separation Event over Lake Michigan - 20 Oct 2004

DESCRIPTION:
The following is sent to all customers, field service bases, regional directors, customer resident representatives and other selected organizations. The following message contains confidential commercial information and is intended only for the internal use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and not for disclosure to others.

On 20 October 2004, the #1 engine of a 747-100 airplane separated during flight. The crew diverted to a nearby airport and landed safely. The NTSB is investigating this event with assistance from the FAA, Pratt & Whitney, and Boeing. The NTSB has released a preliminary report on this incident which provides further details and is repeated below.

QUOTE

On October 20, 2004, about 2029 central daylight time, a Boeing 747-132, N709CK, operated by Kalitta Air, LLC, as flight 825, received substantial damage following a separation and loss of the number one engine while climbing through about 16,000 feet mean sea level over Lake Michigan. The 14 CFR Part 121 non-scheduled international cargo flight was operating on an instrument rules flight plan. Night visual meteorological conditions were reported at the time of the accident. The two pilots, one flight engineer, and two flight mechanics were uninjured. The flight departed from Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, at 2010, and was en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, New York, when it diverted to Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW), Detroit, Michigan, where it landed without further incident.

The flight crew did not report any abnormal conditions prior to the engine separation. Following the engine separation, the flight crew diverted to DTW where a landing was accomplished with normal operation of the leading edge devices and trailing edge flaps.

On-scene inspection of the airplane revealed engine separation at the forward engine mount bulkhead and at the aft engine mount. The aft engine mount was intact with a section of the engine turbine exhaust case still attached. The pylon remained attached to the wing, and the pylon alignment marks were in alignment. The area around the forward engine mount bulkhead was deformed in the outboard and upward direction.

Radar data estimates indicate that the engine is in an area of Lake Michigan that is approximately 240 feet deep.

UNQUOTE


The NTSB preliminary report can be found on the web at:
https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI05FA011&rpt=p

Inspection of the pylon-to-wing fuse pins revealed that they were undamaged. The investigation team agreed that it is necessary to locate and recover the missing engine in order to determine the cause of the separation. Recovery of the engine is being coordinated by the NTSB. The airplane is a 747-132, variable RA635, line number 159, serial number 20247. It was delivered to another operator in 1971 and was converted in 1995 to a freighter with main deck side cargo door. The airplane has accumulated 93,548 flight hours and 26,924 cycles as last reported to Boeing.

Boeing has no recommended operator action at this time. If the investigation shows any specific actions are recommended or required, operators will be notified.



R. S. Breuhaus, Chief Engineer, Air Safety Investigation
BOEING, STA DIR AS M.S. 67-PR

stormin norman
30th Oct 2004, 09:42
The Dragonair Classics flying out of manchester look a bit
tired does anyone know how many hours they have on them ?

Dan Winterland
30th Oct 2004, 10:29
They're all late build 300s with the exception of the 200F which was one of the last Classics built. By Classic standards, they're all youngsters. There are -400s flying which are older.