AA 763 engine failure on ground run
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo,
May have been what happened here but not strictly true.
There have been instances of an uncontained failure hitting the opposite engine. As has been said the velocity that the bit leaves, especially the HP side has no problem in passing through a couple of skins of the cargo bay.
Dont forget the engine actually sits below the fuselage on many aircraft.
The one I remember was the DC10 in OKC. One engine let go and debris hit the opposite engine. And that was a fan failure !
Fortunately he had a spare in the tail and amazingly the debris going back did not ingest into #2
Re Ful tank penetration after the BA B737 with the uncontained failure in UK that puntured the tank at the under wing inspection panels, the under wing inspections were beefed up.
May have been what happened here but not strictly true.
There have been instances of an uncontained failure hitting the opposite engine. As has been said the velocity that the bit leaves, especially the HP side has no problem in passing through a couple of skins of the cargo bay.
Dont forget the engine actually sits below the fuselage on many aircraft.
The one I remember was the DC10 in OKC. One engine let go and debris hit the opposite engine. And that was a fan failure !
Fortunately he had a spare in the tail and amazingly the debris going back did not ingest into #2Re Ful tank penetration after the BA B737 with the uncontained failure in UK that puntured the tank at the under wing inspection panels, the under wing inspections were beefed up.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GotTheTshirt
...
The one I remember was the DC10 in OKC. One engine let go and debris hit the opposite engine. And that was a fan failure ! Fortunately he had a spare in the tail and amazingly the debris going back did not ingest into #2
...
The one I remember was the DC10 in OKC. One engine let go and debris hit the opposite engine. And that was a fan failure !
Fortunately he had a spare in the tail and amazingly the debris going back did not ingest into #2...
But you are right - a fan blade leaving the hub of #3 engine travelled under the fuselage and struck the accy section of #1. I believe that #2 did suffer minor FOD but kept running.
I believe the entire industry learned a good deal from various aspects of this accident, including flight crews NOT experimenting with the autothrottles!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
The cross aircraft damage is unique to a rebound off the runway, as is the fuel tank damage ...
So the 762 could sustain similar damage at V1!
I wouldn't fancy the chances of an a/c in that condition taking to the air and successfully limping back to the field. I suspect the outcome would be very similar to that of Concorde.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barit,
Yes thats the one !! Had a senior moment over the location
I have the photos somewhere but on No 1 the compete gearbox sheered off held by the Hydraulic hoses and Generator cables !!
The No. 3 of course looked like a trick cigar
Also a piece of debris hit one of the aft RH windows and a passenger departed the aircraft - again missing the No 2 engine
Yes thats the one !! Had a senior moment over the location
I have the photos somewhere but on No 1 the compete gearbox sheered off held by the Hydraulic hoses and Generator cables !!
The No. 3 of course looked like a trick cigar
Also a piece of debris hit one of the aft RH windows and a passenger departed the aircraft - again missing the No 2 engine
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the moment
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LA Fire Dept account
http://lafd.********.com/2006/06/boe...ses-major.html
"Firefighters immediately applied firefighting foam and were able to control the fire within sixteen minutes."
Sixteen minutes seems a long time, what is the definition of "under control" in these circumstances?
Creaser
"Firefighters immediately applied firefighting foam and were able to control the fire within sixteen minutes."
Sixteen minutes seems a long time, what is the definition of "under control" in these circumstances?
Creaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bowral
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if in flight?
this may well have caused the plane to crash had it happend in flight
1. The air stream would have constrained the fire to immediately behind the engine and not have affected the fuselage and wing as severely?
2. In spite of the blade exit velocity, the air stream might (possibly) have deflected a chunky blade aft of the other engine?
3. The fire handle may have been pulled more rapidly
?thnx
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previous Similar Trijet mutual fodding
Anybody recall (or have a link to) the L-1011 or DC-10 take-off incident where #1's debris fodded #3 and I believe that the tail-mounted #2 also caught some. They got airborne, dumped and landed again without further trauma.
.
I recall reading the citation for an ALPA award for the crew. As I recall, that was an uncontained bounce off the runway surface into #3.
.
Happened some time within the last 7 years within the Continental US (IIRC it was between 99 and 2002).
.
I recall reading the citation for an ALPA award for the crew. As I recall, that was an uncontained bounce off the runway surface into #3.
.
Happened some time within the last 7 years within the Continental US (IIRC it was between 99 and 2002).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The turbine blade that hit the right engine and the blades that caused the fuel leaks under the right tank had to bounce off the asphalt so if it was in flight probably would not have hit the right engine. Who knows what would have happened in flight if that turbine had passed through the fusilage. Thank God those pilots wrote up the left engine not delivering full climb power at high altitude requiring the full power runup.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Belgique
Anybody recall (or have a link to) the L-1011 or DC-10 take-off incident where #1's debris fodded #3 and I believe that the tail-mounted #2 also caught some. They got airborne, dumped and landed again without further trauma...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
The turbine blade that hit the right engine and the blades that caused the fuel leaks under the right tank had to bounce off the asphalt so if it was in flight probably would not have hit the right engine...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: TLV
Age: 50
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by klink
Would be great to know what powersetting was applied!
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/06/Navigation/177/207118/Pictures+GE+investigates+cause+of+American+Airlines+Boeing+7 67-200+uncontained+CF6-80A+engine.html
By the way, I imagine the results would be different, if this happened in flight, with the airstream taking all the debris back. The damage to the right engine could also have happened from debris bounced off the tarmac.
But, what would happen if this occured during the takeoff run, say around V1? Still not enough airstream to deflect all the debris, and still tarmac below to bounce off some debris back to the fuselage...
What do you think?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to agree that the cross engine and tank access panel damage is rebound and unlikely to have happened in flight. There have been enough large engine uncontained failures that haven't resulted in further structural damage to support this view.
Check your ADI's when parked on a gate. You'll usualy be 0.5 or so degrees nose up. Reason being that should there be a major fuel spill it can be directed back to the grated drains that often run spanwise across the back of a bay. A dedicated engine running probably couldn't accomodate that but at least you can take comfort in knowing that most major spills on bay WILL be directed away from the aircraft.
Check your ADI's when parked on a gate. You'll usualy be 0.5 or so degrees nose up. Reason being that should there be a major fuel spill it can be directed back to the grated drains that often run spanwise across the back of a bay. A dedicated engine running probably couldn't accomodate that but at least you can take comfort in knowing that most major spills on bay WILL be directed away from the aircraft.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rosterwilltell
Age: 68
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we need to introduce old procs
(quote from Flight)
General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained engine failure which caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing 767-200 at Los Angeles on Friday.
The aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the (left) No.1 engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power response from the engine during the flight.
(unquote)
First in a problem you should do a count on parts. We hat it too, sluggish power response and finally a blade was missing. Fortunatly the engine did not blow up on test.
Just as fun, once I asked the main difference between Pratts and GE's.
Answer: whether hear the loud bang when the Canadian cuffs or the Cowboy spreads the hot section over the runway.
Had this in flight, no problem securing the engine, after landing all parts (found)at atemperature you can touch them
General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained engine failure which caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing 767-200 at Los Angeles on Friday.
The aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the (left) No.1 engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power response from the engine during the flight.
(unquote)
First in a problem you should do a count on parts. We hat it too, sluggish power response and finally a blade was missing. Fortunatly the engine did not blow up on test.
Just as fun, once I asked the main difference between Pratts and GE's.
Answer: whether hear the loud bang when the Canadian cuffs or the Cowboy spreads the hot section over the runway.
Had this in flight, no problem securing the engine, after landing all parts (found)at atemperature you can touch them
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 71
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2000/A00_121_124.pdf
Sept 22 2000 USAir had a similar incident...same motors...same type high speed runup by mtc...except that the hpt stage 1 disk went up and over the aircraft into the river. AC was written off due to fire damage. N654US.
Sept 22 2000 USAir had a similar incident...same motors...same type high speed runup by mtc...except that the hpt stage 1 disk went up and over the aircraft into the river. AC was written off due to fire damage. N654US.
Originally Posted by 747dieseldude
........ snip.
But, what would happen if this occured during the takeoff run, say around V1? Still not enough airstream to deflect all the debris, and still tarmac below to bounce off some debris back to the fuselage...
What do you think?
But, what would happen if this occured during the takeoff run, say around V1? Still not enough airstream to deflect all the debris, and still tarmac below to bounce off some debris back to the fuselage...
What do you think?