Engine failure B742 FRA
 

A B747-200 has made an RTO due to an uncontained engine failure at FRA yesterday apparently resulting in substancial damage to wing and fuselage says a report on Avherald.

Does anyone have any pictures of this incident? It's of interest as I'm a structural mechanic.

Most likely this incident:

Accident: Southern Air B742 at Frankfurt on Sep 24th 2010, rejected takeoff due to uncontained engine failure

Expect more of this kind of incident as Kalitta has acquired many ex-NWA -200F's....and these are very old airplanes, of questionable serviceability.
IE: DAL got rid of them for a very good reason.

FO wun wun,
Seein as how dat faylure was a GEE EEE, and da NWA flyin macheens got Pratts, not so sure dats gonna be a problim.

Perhaps you haven't actually seen or flown those airplanes. I have, recently, and they weren't in bad shape at all. Quite good, actually. One is the last -200 off the assembly line, I believe, and featured a number of -400 parts...not a bad airplane at all. Furthermore, they'll be making a number of upgrades.

Delta/NWA didn't park them because they were no longer serviceable. They were no longer flying the Classic, and elected not to continue as the sole remaining legacy carrier with it's own freight division.

With good reason.:}

Logged 15 years on the classics, bad maintenance and all, for several "carriers", never had one A bit of luck is involved in this business, or lack of:

Air France Concord, BA B-777, Singapore B-744, etc. :sad:

The "good reason" is that they don't operate the classic. Go figure.

So far as discontinuing freight; they could have continued with other types they operate, such as the 777. Delta elected not to do so.

It's all quite simple.
I was personally told by three separate VP's at DAL about seven years ago, that....'we will never again purchase a four engine type and, if we buy or merge with another carrier that has four engine types, they will be sold as rapidly as possible, without disrupting scheduled service
And, we will never be in the freight business again.'

Now, as for Kalitta, we all remember this...:eek:

Which belies your attempted point that the airplanes were retired for their poor condition. They were not, and they are not in poor condition. Again, I've flown them recently. You?

Also irrelevant to the matter at hand. Given that your assertions are without merit, perhaps you'll simply drop it, and go back to carrying on about the L-1011.

There were quarters where the only part of NWA that made money was the cargo side.

Could a mod please remove this ridiculous posting. I thought postings had to be in English unless on one of the foreign language forums. Thank you.

Fun Police have arrived :D

Hardly...just as BRU and BOG are relevant with any reference to Kalitta.

Now that is a true statement.
The acft at FRA was Southern Air, I believe, and these GE engines have an urgent AD, which is very serious business.
I was recently told by a senior FAA type that (some) Pratt models will be affected by a similar AD shortly.

Looks like another CF6-50 has blown up. The original NTSB recommendation called for borescoping every 20ish hours. The FAA changed that to 75ish, but of course I would never suggest that was in any way as a result of commercial pressure. The ACT A300 which blew a donk in BAH had been borescoped 50ish hour prior to blowing up; it will be interesting to see when the last borescope of this engine took place.

Affected aircraft are the 747, DC-10 and A300 which, as we all know, are mainly being used as freighters.GE have no intention or plans for a permanent fix - it's not economically viable.

Your insistence on being 100% wrong here is notable, and admirably, you continue in that vein.

Aside from the two events occurring within the same company, there is no relationship between the two, and neither occurred as the fault of the company.

Either your grasping at straws (this would appear the case), or you have no clue whence you speak. Which is the case?

Company no, personnel within the company...certainly no doubt.
It is just as well that Kalitta is obtaining additional aircraft, as hulls seem to be destroyed with some regularity.:rolleyes:

You continue to spout off stupidly, and 100% in error. Do you choose to say the same thing about every company which has had more than one loss?

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. One can hardly blame the company for the captain's decision to reject the takeoff well after V1, particularly when the captain didn't share his actions in real time with his own crew.

There is, of course, no connection between that event and the Bogota mishap. That event is at present, inconclusive, and the subject of ongoing investigation and litigation. It would appear that you're still grasping at straws on subjects with which you're not conversant.

These events, of course, have no bearing on the fines with Evergreen.
Ah, you're attempting to draw a parallel between two different types of engines (and an unrelated company) by referencing an AD which doesn't exist. Further, you have no idea if the GE AD had any bearing on the event in question.

100% wrong for you, again. You are consistently in error.

You entered the thread to attack Kalitta, when Kalitta has nothing to do with the event in question.

You attempted attack the condition of airplanes which are not online with Kalitta...when your assessment of the airplanes is in error and you have no experience with them.

You attempted to draw a non sequitur parallel between GE engines and Pratt engines in complete absence of fact.

You attempted to draw a connection between the Kalitta hull losses, when there is none.

You clearly have an agenda, but are poorly informed, and probably stick to reliving your glory days in the L1011. It seems to be your forte.

I understand that the CF6 is a rather "proven technology" (old) powerplant, but from where does this apparent big increase in failures originate from? The powerplants ought to be on their typical overhaul/rebuild cycles. Are the repair stations leaving things to be desired?

I believe they are suspecting metallurgical issues with a low-pressure turbine wheel. As far as I remember, there has been no actual AD issued about the engine as of yet, but it is recommended to borescope the engine at 20 (?) hour intervals. Or possibly at 20 cycle intervals. I can't remember which.

Midex also had an uncontained failure recently while climbing through about FL200 out of Bahrain.