QF A330-300 Door - rumour....

[HotDog]

Yesterday a Nationwide Boeing 737 engine fell off the aircraft on takeoff at Cape Town, the engine had to be cleared off the runway for the aircraft to return to land.

History of 737 engine mount failures:
Delta B737-200 7Jan92 DFW. Engine separation on takeoff. After T/O at 200' breakaway safety bolts called "Cone Pins" sheared for right engine. Engine bounced on grass on right side of runway.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X13985&key=1
... FTW92IA055 ....
... DELTA AIR LINES ...
... Tuesday, January 07, 1992 in DFW ...
... BOEING 737-232 ... N322DL ...
THE RIGHT ENGINE SEPARATED ... CLIMBING THROUGH 200 FEET AFTER TAKEOFF. ... UNEVENTFUL LANDING ...
ENGINE SEPARATION WAS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE AFT CONE BOLT AND THE ENGINE SECONDARY SUPPORT ASSEMBLY. THE AFT CONE BOLT FAILED AS RESULT OF A PREEXISTING FATIGUE CRACK, WHILE THE ENGINE SECONDARY SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FAILED AS RESULT OF THE DYNAMIC LOADS THAT EXCEEDED THE DESIGNED CAPACITY OF THE MOUNTING BOLTS.
THE TWO FORWARD CONE BOLTS FAILED IN OVERLOAD AS THE ENGINE SWUNG FORWARD DURING THE SEPARATION SEQUENCE.
METALLURGICAL TESTING REVEALED THAT THE FATIGUE OF THE AFT CONE BOLT WAS A RESULT OF LUBRICANT INADVERTENTLY INTRODUCED INTO THE CONICAL SURFACE OF THE CONE BOLT.
...Board determines the probable cause ...
THE FAILURE OF THE AFT CONE BOLT AS RESULT OF PREEXISTING FATIGUE CRACKING DUE TO IMPROPER MAINTENANCE, AND THE FAILURE OF THE SECONDARY SUPPORT STRUCTURE AS A RESULT OF LOADS THAT EXCEEDED THE CAPACITY OF THE ATTACHING HARDWARE AND THE CRUSHABLE HONEYCOMB CORE.
= = = // = = =
Piedmont Airlines B737-200, 20Jan89, right engine separated from aircraft after T/O at Chicago. Newly designed secondary support structure had not yet been installed.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X27558&key=1
... CHI89MA046 ....
... PIEDMONT AIRLINES
... Friday, January 20, 1989 in CHICAGO, IL ...
... BOEING 737-201 ... N242US ...
AN IN-FLIGHT TEARAWAY OF THE RIGHT ENGINE (FROM THE RIGHT WING) OCCURRED AS THE AIRPLANE LIFTED OFF FROM THE RUNWAY. ... CONTINUED THE TAKEOFF ... RETURNED ...
AN EXAM OF ITS WING & SEPARATED ENGINE REVEALED THE AFT CONE (ENG MOUNTING) BOLT HAD FAILED FROM FATIGUE, THEN THE TWO FORWARD CONE BOLTS FAILED FROM DUCTILE OVERSTRESS.
A RAISED MECHANICAL DEFORMATIVE WAS FOUND ON THE CONICAL SURFACE OF THE AFT BOLT. THE DEFORMITY WAS INDICATIVE OF DAMAGE PRODUCED PRIOR TO OR DURING ASSEMBLY OF THE CONE BOLT IN THE ISOLATION MOUNT. A MATCHING CAVITY WAS NOTED ON THE ISOLATION MOUNT. THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE MECHANICAL IRREGULARITY RESULTED IN A NONUNIFORM FIT WHICH ALLOWED THE TORQUED FITTING TO LOOSEN DURING CYCLIC LOADING.
AD 88-01-07 REQUIRED THAT ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF THE CONE BOLTS BE PERFORMED AT INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 600 CYCLES. AN ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF THE BOLTS HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ABOUT 330 CYCLES BEFORE THE ENGINE SEPARATED.
... Board determines the probable cause ...
PREVIOUS DAMAGE TO THE AFT CONE (ENGINE MOUNTING) BOLT, WHICH RESULTED IN MISMATCHED SURFACES BETWEEN THE BOLT AND ISOLATION MOUNT, LOSS OF TORQUE DURING CYCLIC LOADING OF THE MOUNTING BOLT, AND SUBSEQUENT FATIGUE FAILURE OF THE BOLT.
= = = // = = =
US Air B737-200 PHL 5Dec87 #2 engine separated shortly after takeoff. Cracks caused by metal fatigue in one of three bolts; after rear bolt failed the two forward bolts and support cable failed in overload. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X32769&key=1
... NYC88FA050 ....
... USAIR
... Saturday, December 05, 1987 ... DEPTFORD, NJ ...
... BOEING 737-2B7 ... N319AU ...
DRG TKOF, AS USAIR FLT 224 WAS CLBG THRU 4000', THE ACFT YAWED/ROLLED RGT. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE CREW NOTICED THE #2 THROTTLE SLAM/LOCK TO THE IDLE PSN & A CONTINUOUS AIRFRAME BUFFET BEGAN.
SOON THEREAFTER, THE #2 ENG SEPD FM THE ACFT & THE BUFFET STOPPED.
THE ENG IMPACTED IN AN OPEN FLD, 6 MI FM THE ARPT.
JUST BFR IT SEPD, A PAX SAW THE AFT END OF THE #2 ENG MOMENTARILY DROOP ABOUT 30 DEG.
AFTER ENG SEPN, THE 'B' HYD SYS LOST PRES & THE TE FLAPS WOULD ONLY EXTD 10 DEG.
THE ACFT WAS LNDD SAFELY AFTER AN EMERG GEAR EXTN & DIFFERENTIAL BRAKING WAS USED FOR STEERING.
AN EXAM REVEALED THE AFT MOUNT CONE BOLT FOR THE #2 ENG HAD FAILED FM FATIGUE THRU THE THREAD RELIEF UNDERCUT RADIUS. FATIGUE CRACKS HAD INITIATED ON DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE RADIUS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FWD MOUNT CONE BOLTS & SECONDARY SUPPORT CABLE FAILED FROM OVERLOAD.
... Board determines the probable cause ...
ENGINE INSTALLATION, MOUNTING BOLT ..FATIGUE
= = = // = = =
"Southwest 223" / 3Jan86 B737-2H4, after T/O from Love Field (Dallas), Rt Engine rear mount Cone Bolt sheared, mount failed and restraining cable broke; leaving the engine attached by only the two fwd mount bolts; returned safely. [AWST 124:31 Ja 13'86, photo.]
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...10X00187&key=1
... FTW86MA030
... SOUTHWEST ...
... January 03, 1986 in DALLAS, TX
... BOEING 737-2H4 ... N86SW ...
THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED WHEN THE NO. 2 ENGINE EXPERIENCED AN AFT ENGINE MOUNT CONE BOLT FAILURE AND THE SUBSEQUENT FAILURE OF THE SECONDARY SUPPORT LINK (STAINLESS STEEL CABLE).
THE FAILURE OF BOTH AFT ENGINE SUPPORT ASSEMBLIES DURING THE TAKEOFF ROLL ALLOWED THE AFT SECTION OF THE ENG TO HANG DOWN TO WITHIN 4' [sic, transcription err] OF THE GROUND. AS A RESULT, THE NO.2 THRUST REVERSER ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY DRUG THE RUNWAY ON ROTATION.
... RETURNED ... LANDED...
METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CONE BOLT REVEALED THAT IT FAILED AS A RESULT OF FATIGUE, MOST PROBABLY DUE TO IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF THE BOLT, SPECIFICALLY, THAT IT WAS UNDER TORQUED WHEN THE OPERATOR RE-INSTALLED THE ENG.
THE SAFETY CABLE FAILED AS A RESULT OF OVERSTRESS, PROBABLY INDUCED WHEN THE ACFT ENCOUNTERED A ROUGH STRETCH OF RUNWAY DURING THE TAKEOFF ROLL.
... Board determines the probable cause ...
ENGINE INSTALLATION, SUSPENSION MOUNTS .. FAILURE, PARTIAL
... FATIGUE ... SEPARATION ... OVERLOAD ... UNDERTORQUED
MAINTENANCE, INSTALLATION .. IMPROPER ...
Contributing Factors ... RUNWAY / LANDING AREA CONDITION ... ROUGH /UNEVEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by IGh : Today at 04:14.

[swh]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

I obviously hit a raw nerve here, and the sensitivities of what would appear to be a crowd of Airbus lovers!!

Just thought you were one of those people that did not know any better, now it appears you were just posting to cause trouble. I gave you a simple factual answer to your question, maybe not simple enough for you.

There are reasons why a door should fail if subjected to damage from ground crew, it is better in the long term for the aircraft.

I would rather have a few hours/days of schedule disruption to replace a door, than an in flight failure involving the fuselage. Not aware of any fuselage failures of jets that size which did not result in a loss of life.

[bushy]

707?

I remember reading about a 707 that took off from London and had an engine fall off. The crew flew a circuit and landed. Pax were evacuated, but the engineer left the fuel pumps on for the missing engine. The aircraft burned and the fire crew sprayed foam on it but ran out of water. The backup water truck was not there because it was out on a "readiness" exercise.

[PitPin]

Correct

The door assembly behaved exactly as it should have shearing at the hinge arm casting !

[ScottyDoo]

Airbus A300-400 hit by missile on T/O from Baghdad, losing all flight controls, landed back at Baghdad after one missed approach. Flight controlled solely by manipulating differential engine thrust. No further comment necessary.

Very true, Warm Mutt. However this was, as you point out, an A300. Would be interesting to see how the current gen of FBW Airbus would handle it. Or Boeing for that matter.

[HotDog]

Would be interesting to see how the current gen of FBW Airbus would handle it. Or Boeing for that matter.

They were extremely lucky that the badly damaged spar didn't fail completely before they managed to land. I also think current generation Airbus or Boeing aircraft could handle it with all things being equal, including pilot skills.

[Led Zep]

While we are at it regarding engines falling off, let us not forget the AA DC-10 that lost an engine during rotation.

[Capt Fathom]

Not too sure what the similarities are here with the Bus losing a door, and an engine coming off a DC-10 on rotate and killing over two hundred people...???

[HotDog]

Plus the fact that the loss of the DC10 engine and hundreds of passengers were due to maintenance malpractice. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

[Led Zep]

Capt Fathom,
Neither do I, but I thought I might as well continue to head this thread off course. I figured that since we had started to head into a Boeing V Airbus debate, we might as well bring MD into the equation.

HotDog,
I am well up to speed with what caused that accident.


Next time I promise to do a better job of being sarcastic!

Maybe one of these would have helped in my previous post.

[Qanchor]

QF, the 330 & doors....the real story

In an attempt to nix a pointless thread, here's the truth......
When the A330 deal was signed in the late '90's, Airbus Industrie R & D dept. approached Ground Services and associated depts. to conduct a real time/in service, Door Destructive Testing program, "DDT".
Concurrent with type intro planning, ground services began their own planning. Airbus stipulated that to ensure the data supplied was uncorrupted, the testing exercises had to be unplanned, random and different each time. Further to this, all ground services personnel involved were to suffer from Airbus Door Dislike "ADD" syndrome. This planning paid off as the first DDT exercise was conducted soon after the first airframe arrived (SY). Other operators were also included in this exercise, but none have been able to match this effort in terms of regular & varied testing techniques.
Although testing continues, (ML, PH so far) an early benefit has become apparent in that new aircraft warranties will now be rewritten to include a couple of spare doors with each delivery.............................. at least to Q anyway.

[ules]

a door falling of is nothing compared to this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770


i wonder how on earth this would happen. is it even possible

737 engine falling off

[Capt Claret]

No it's not possible, the picture has been created.

ps, not the first engine to separate, and probably not the last.

[18-Wheeler]

I know Evergreen and ANA have also had an engines come off in flight from 747s.

You might want to balance your post by also mentioning the 747 in the early 70's that took off on the wrong runway in San Fransico, and the lighting gear at the end of the runway tore out the belly of the plane. They lost three out of the four hydraulic systems but still managed to make an otherwise safe landing, even with massive damage to the structure.
And the China Airlines 747-SP, that lost an engine on the Pacific then stalled & flipped over onto it's back. On the pull-up it went to 4.7 G's and 5.1 G's, or something like 200% of the designe loading, yet it managed to stay flying.
Also, the engines seperating from the structure is pretty much what they're designed to do in certain cases. So some of those accidents protrayed had the design of the craft doing what it was supposed to do.
But true enough they have had some odd failures from time to time.

[swh]

Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler

You might want to balance your post by also mentioning the 747 in the early 70's that took off on the wrong runway in San Fransico, and the lighting gear at the end of the runway tore out the belly of the plane.

To be balanced, I could mention SQ006 at TPE.

Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler

So some of those accidents protrayed had the design of the craft doing what it was supposed to do.

All of those incidents were due to the people who flew them not the people who designed/built them. Just like the Iberia A340 incident today, hardly something a manufacturer has control over.

Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler

But true enough they have had some odd failures from time to time.

Which was my point, they make aircraft no better or worse, failures like those the manufacture has control over when they design or build them.

A manufacturer has no control over ramp/hanger rash.

[18-Wheeler]

To be balanced, I could mention SQ006 at TPE.

But it wouldn't as an aeroplane that's been ripped to pieces simply will no fly no matter what.

All of those incidents were due to the people who flew them not the people who designed/built them.

That does not address my statement.

Which was my point, they make aircraft no better or worse,

Having talked to a lot of ground engineers, they pretty much all say that Boeings are better put together. Some have said that there's some clever part of Airbus's, but I have not yet come across one that says Airbus is a better thing.
Others may have heard differently, but I have not.

[swh]

Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler

That does not address my statement.

You said "Mr Boeing knows how to build them tough enough for the real world.", all you have shown in the real world, more failures occur on a Boeing, and in the real world, Mr Boeing has no control over how people operate or damage aircraft they have designed.
Mr Boeing is not better or worse than anything else, even in the real world. As domo posted, doors come off Boeing's as well.

Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler

Others may have heard differently, but I have not.

Trying to cement your argument with heresay is useless. Look at dispatch rates, utilisation rates, accidents, orders, and what airframes are being placed in the desert.
Mr Boeing is not better or worse than anything else, even in the real world. If they were better, you could measure it in some objective way.
My best friends uncles cousins who is a friend of an engineer style comments are useless, it is not an objective measure. The markets is polarised, both Airbus and Boeing receive about 50% of the orders for jets above 100 seats each year, if Boeing's were so much better, you would see the market voting with its feet.
Your original comments were nothing more than naive flag waving. You have never operated anything but a Boeing, and as far as I am aware, never worked for an airline with enough of each types to make a valid comparison on hard data.

[blueloo]

This is all wonderful stuff - but please open a new topic and discuss it there.

This topic is about 1 incident. It involves a door. It involves 1 plane and it involves 1 company. It doesnt involve engines, engines falling off, or a bogun ford vs holden debate or a boeing vs airbus debate.

If your discussion doesnt relate to these items combined ie door damaged on QF A330 then don't reply!

[18-Wheeler]

You said "Mr Boeing knows how to build them tough enough for the real world.", all you have shown in the real world, more failures occur on a Boeing,

No I didn't show that. I onl gave an example that I saw in person of a plane that I was operating where the door took most of the load of an aerobridge without coming off.
It's not surprising that there's plenty of information on Boeing failures, as there's a heck of a lot more of them that Airbus'. For example, Boeing has made more 737's than Airbus has made Airbus's.

My best friends uncles cousins who is a friend of an engineer style comments are useless

I specifically said ground engineers, not that waffle.

You have never operated anything but a Boeing, and as far as I am aware, never worked for an airline with enough of each types to make a valid comparison on hard data.

If you're not sure of what I have and have not done, then it would not be appropriate to comment on what I know of either type.
And yes, Blueloo, that's all I'm going to say about it.