Engine failure B742 FRA
I would suggest that before one starts condeming Kalita and/or engine types that they do at least work with discoverable facts.
Since nobody has posted any pictures of this latest event or something other than second hand rumor that the inferences of blame are unwarranted.
And as for AD action and yet another failure.
The best the industry can do is to minimize failure conditions to an extent that it is extremely unlikely that other than average pilot skill will save an aircraft due to en engine failure.
Since nobody has posted any pictures of this latest event or something other than second hand rumor that the inferences of blame are unwarranted.
And as for AD action and yet another failure.
The best the industry can do is to minimize failure conditions to an extent that it is extremely unlikely that other than average pilot skill will save an aircraft due to en engine failure.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Clue
411 must have gotten the wrong number when he dialed 411.
As a side note Kalitta will put three of the -200F with JT9D-74RJ engines in service over the next 3 months and they are fully booked.
As a side note Kalitta will put three of the -200F with JT9D-74RJ engines in service over the next 3 months and they are fully booked.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411 must have gotten the wrong number when he dialed 411.
And, what's more, I observed first hand, some time ago.
With a few notable exceptions, I have never seen such a group of misfits all together in one location.
Just as one example, Kalitta’s abysmal efforts to maintain RB.211 engines (never mind the airplane to which they were attached), are legendary.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No comments on the reliability of the affected aircraft...
However, the takeoff must have been aborted right after setting takeoff thrust as the aircraft was standing only a couple of meters past the lineup position on RWY18 as we taxied in on that evening. Rescue services were all around. Today I saw the 742 parked at a remote stand in the southern part of the airport.
I am curious how long it will stay in FRA and if it will be repaired or rather written off. We will see...
However, the takeoff must have been aborted right after setting takeoff thrust as the aircraft was standing only a couple of meters past the lineup position on RWY18 as we taxied in on that evening. Rescue services were all around. Today I saw the 742 parked at a remote stand in the southern part of the airport.
I am curious how long it will stay in FRA and if it will be repaired or rather written off. We will see...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Clue
Must then be a disconnected number. Other then the two unfortunate incidents-one pilot error the other yet to be determined.- , Kalitta's performance since its reformation in 2001 has been excellent. Kalitta is well respected in the industry by its commercial customers; by USPS for the high reliabilility it has maintained in delivering mail to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and by DHL who are expanding their current business relationship with Kalitta at the expense of Polar/Atlas.
As to misfits-perhaps you were the last to leave
As to misfits-perhaps you were the last to leave
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB-10-20
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2010
SB-10-20
FOUR RECENT UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE EVENTS PROMPT NTSB TO ISSUE URGENT SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS TO FAA
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board today issued two urgent safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The first recommendation asks that the FAA require operators of aircraft equipped with a particular model engine to immediately perform blade borescope inspections (BSI) of the high pressure turbine rotor at specific intervals until the current turbine disk can be redesigned and replaced with one that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. The second recommendation asks the FAA to require the engine manufacturer to immediately redesign the disk. The NTSB issued an additional recommendation for a requirement that operators perform a second type of inspection and another recommendation related to the engine manufacturer regarding the installation of the replacement disk.
All four recommendations apply to the low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 (S3) rotor disk in the General Electric (GE) CF6-45/50 series turbofan engines that can fail unexpectedly when excited by high-pressure (HP) rotor unbalance.
An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines. Engine cases are not designed to contain failed turbine disks. Instead, the risk of uncontained disk failure is mitigated by designating disks as safety-critical parts, defined as the parts of an engine whose failure is likely to present a direct hazard to the aircraft.
In its safety recommendations to the FAA, the NTSB cited four foreign accidents, which the NTSB is either investigating or participating in an investigation led by another nation, in which the aircraft experienced an uncontained engine failure of its GE CF6-45/50 series engine.
The date, location, and circumstances of these four events (none had injuries or fatalities) are as follows:
On July 4, 2008, a Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) Boeing 747-300 experienced an engine failure during initial climb after takeoff from Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On March 26, 2009, an Arrow Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10F, about 30 minutes after takeoff from Manaus, Brazil, experienced loss of oil pressure in one engine. The pilots shut down the engine and diverted to Medellin, Columbia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On December 17, 2009, a Jett8 Cargo Boeing 747-200F airplane was passing through 7,000 feet above ground level (agl) when the flight crewmembers heard a muffled explosion and immediately applied left rudder. With one engine losing oil pressure, the airplane returned to land at Changi, Singapore. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore.
On April 10, 2010, an ACT Cargo Airbus A300B4 experienced an engine failure while accelerating for takeoff at Manama, Bahrain. The crew declared an emergency, rejected the takeoff, activated the fire suppression system, and evacuated the airplane. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Bahrain Ministry of Transportation - Civil Aviation.
The four recommendations to the FAA are as follows:
1. Immediately require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform high pressure turbine rotor blade borescope inspections every 15 flight cycles until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. (Urgent)
2. Require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform fluorescent penetrant inspections of CF6-45- 50- low pressure turbine stage 3 disks at every engine shop visit until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor.
3. Immediately require General Electric Company to redesign the CF6-45/50 low pressure turbine stage 3 disk so that it will not fail when exposed to high pressure rotor unbalance forces. (Urgent)
4. Once General Electric Company has redesigned the CF6- 45/50 low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 disk in accordance with Safety Recommendation [3], require all operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to install the newly designed LPT S3 at the next maintenance opportunity.
The safety recommendation letter to the Federal Aviation Administration with all four safety recommendations may be found here: http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2010/A-10-098- 101.pdf
# # #
NTSB Media Contact: Bridget Serchak
202-314-6100
[email protected]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2010
SB-10-20
FOUR RECENT UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE EVENTS PROMPT NTSB TO ISSUE URGENT SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS TO FAA
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board today issued two urgent safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The first recommendation asks that the FAA require operators of aircraft equipped with a particular model engine to immediately perform blade borescope inspections (BSI) of the high pressure turbine rotor at specific intervals until the current turbine disk can be redesigned and replaced with one that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. The second recommendation asks the FAA to require the engine manufacturer to immediately redesign the disk. The NTSB issued an additional recommendation for a requirement that operators perform a second type of inspection and another recommendation related to the engine manufacturer regarding the installation of the replacement disk.
All four recommendations apply to the low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 (S3) rotor disk in the General Electric (GE) CF6-45/50 series turbofan engines that can fail unexpectedly when excited by high-pressure (HP) rotor unbalance.
An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines. Engine cases are not designed to contain failed turbine disks. Instead, the risk of uncontained disk failure is mitigated by designating disks as safety-critical parts, defined as the parts of an engine whose failure is likely to present a direct hazard to the aircraft.
In its safety recommendations to the FAA, the NTSB cited four foreign accidents, which the NTSB is either investigating or participating in an investigation led by another nation, in which the aircraft experienced an uncontained engine failure of its GE CF6-45/50 series engine.
The date, location, and circumstances of these four events (none had injuries or fatalities) are as follows:
On July 4, 2008, a Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) Boeing 747-300 experienced an engine failure during initial climb after takeoff from Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On March 26, 2009, an Arrow Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10F, about 30 minutes after takeoff from Manaus, Brazil, experienced loss of oil pressure in one engine. The pilots shut down the engine and diverted to Medellin, Columbia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On December 17, 2009, a Jett8 Cargo Boeing 747-200F airplane was passing through 7,000 feet above ground level (agl) when the flight crewmembers heard a muffled explosion and immediately applied left rudder. With one engine losing oil pressure, the airplane returned to land at Changi, Singapore. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore.
On April 10, 2010, an ACT Cargo Airbus A300B4 experienced an engine failure while accelerating for takeoff at Manama, Bahrain. The crew declared an emergency, rejected the takeoff, activated the fire suppression system, and evacuated the airplane. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Bahrain Ministry of Transportation - Civil Aviation.
The four recommendations to the FAA are as follows:
1. Immediately require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform high pressure turbine rotor blade borescope inspections every 15 flight cycles until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. (Urgent)
2. Require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform fluorescent penetrant inspections of CF6-45- 50- low pressure turbine stage 3 disks at every engine shop visit until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor.
3. Immediately require General Electric Company to redesign the CF6-45/50 low pressure turbine stage 3 disk so that it will not fail when exposed to high pressure rotor unbalance forces. (Urgent)
4. Once General Electric Company has redesigned the CF6- 45/50 low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 disk in accordance with Safety Recommendation [3], require all operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to install the newly designed LPT S3 at the next maintenance opportunity.
The safety recommendation letter to the Federal Aviation Administration with all four safety recommendations may be found here: http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2010/A-10-098- 101.pdf
# # #
NTSB Media Contact: Bridget Serchak
202-314-6100
[email protected]
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, what's more, I observed first hand, some time ago.
Relive the glory on the L1011...at least you usually get some of that right.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guppy out to lunch, it would appear...
I have never seen such a group of misfits all together in one location.
The Brussels mishap occurred due to a poor pilot decision, following a bird ingestion. The pilot acted contrary to company policy, contrary to his own departure briefing, contrary to Boeing policy, and without coordination with the crew. He acted contrary to company training, and contrary to his own performance at each of his training events.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stupidity rolls on. You continue to make unfounded statements with nothing to back them up but your prattling keyboard.
What evidence do you have that the captain who made the error in Brussels is still flying for Kalitta? He is not. You continue to be 100% wrong, don't you?,
Then again, whether that individual is present, you cannot establish any point which suggests that his mistake is to be repeated, either by himself, or any other pilot...and you certainly can't establish any causal link within the company training, culture, standard operating procedures, or policy which would have lead to his actions, or which would lead to them again.
If you're going to speak more unprofessionally than you have thus far, it may prove difficult. Blame one engine make and model for another, blame one company for another, and you rabbit on and on about that which you clearly don't know or understand, based on something you thought you knew long ago. Obviously you didn't understand it any more then than you think you do now, and quite clearly you don't understand now.
What evidence do you have that the captain who made the error in Brussels is still flying for Kalitta? He is not. You continue to be 100% wrong, don't you?,
Then again, whether that individual is present, you cannot establish any point which suggests that his mistake is to be repeated, either by himself, or any other pilot...and you certainly can't establish any causal link within the company training, culture, standard operating procedures, or policy which would have lead to his actions, or which would lead to them again.
If you're going to speak more unprofessionally than you have thus far, it may prove difficult. Blame one engine make and model for another, blame one company for another, and you rabbit on and on about that which you clearly don't know or understand, based on something you thought you knew long ago. Obviously you didn't understand it any more then than you think you do now, and quite clearly you don't understand now.
411A (does the 'A' stand for 'A'hole?)....
You are a bit of a tit really arent you !
I don't work for that company in YIP...never have...but I would just like to finish by adding......
you are a mis-informed f*cking idiot.
** note to Mods...sorry for the bad language.....but 411A really is a total f*cking prick !
(disclaimer....this opinion is not the opinion of the management of pprune...just of Beer_n_Tabs....who at the point of writing this disclaimer still thinks that 411A is a bit of a tit)
Lots of love
Beer_n_Tabs
Looks to me that some of those misfits are still around...
I don't work for that company in YIP...never have...but I would just like to finish by adding......
you are a mis-informed f*cking idiot.
** note to Mods...sorry for the bad language.....but 411A really is a total f*cking prick !
(disclaimer....this opinion is not the opinion of the management of pprune...just of Beer_n_Tabs....who at the point of writing this disclaimer still thinks that 411A is a bit of a tit)
Lots of love
Beer_n_Tabs
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: michigan
Age: 57
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A. It sounds like the ranting of a bitter old man trying to hold on to the past. You have no current knowledge of the current Kalitta operational and/or maintenance status of the airline. Bad mouthing the airline will not bring it down to your current career status to make you feel better about your current career standings.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad mouthing the airline will not bring it down ....
Only a matter of time.
The clock is ticking....tick, tock.
What evidence do you have that the captain who made the error in Brussels is still flying for Kalitta? He is not.
One then wonders....how did he get in the HR door in the first place?
As regards GE CF6 engines, this places Southern Air in rather a bad position, as...all of their airplanes (so far as I know) are GE powered.
A couple more of these failures and it is quite likely the FAA will take very stern action.
Grounding is a distinct possibility.
Last edited by 411A; 27th Sep 2010 at 01:20.
411a seems a little confused but in a pattern that seems to repeat itself.
What's the word for it again, oh yes, here it is :
'Schizophrenia ( or ) is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. ...'
It's not too late to get help !
What's the word for it again, oh yes, here it is :
'Schizophrenia ( or ) is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. ...'
It's not too late to get help !
I have some tears to arrest from laughing at this thread.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this thread about the Southern engine failure or some pissing contest about Kalitta and past operational problems?
One then wonders....how did he get in the HR door in the first place?
Accident investigators remarked that his was the most thorough and most professional briefing they had ever heard. They were impressed. Unfortunately, he failed to abide his briefing.
His rationale for rejecting the takeoff was that he didn't feel that the airplane was accelerating normally. The cause of the bang which initiated the evolution was a bird ingestion. Flight data recorder proved what was already a given, as did subsequent simulator demonstrations; the airplane was capable of flying, and should have been flown off. The reject took place beyond V1, and clearly should not have.
If only you had been there to hire or train the man, certainly things would have been different, wouldn't they?
Of course, you weren't there, were you? This is why you really don't know what it is that you're talking about. You were never there. Stick to your L1011 memories and leave truth and facts to others who really know, okay?
Then, when you're done hijacking the thread and putting your nose far beyond the limits of where it might reasonably belong, perhaps you can release the thread back to the proper topic. Do you think you can do that?