AA 763 engine failure on ground run
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA 763 engine failure on ground run
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1055376/L/
Looks rather dramatic, thankfully nobody was hurt. There's not many pictures of engines broken (for comparison) but I was rather surprised at what appears to have been evidence of a fairly nasty fire. The turbine part of the engine casing appears severely damaged.
Looks rather dramatic, thankfully nobody was hurt. There's not many pictures of engines broken (for comparison) but I was rather surprised at what appears to have been evidence of a fairly nasty fire. The turbine part of the engine casing appears severely damaged.
Last edited by JamesT73J; 3rd Jun 2006 at 16:28.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JamesT73J
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1055376/L/
Looks rather dramatic, thankfully nobody was hurt. There's not many pictures of engines broken (for comparison) but I was rather surprised at what appears to have been evidence of a fairly nasty fire. The turbine part of the engine casing appears severely damaged.
Looks rather dramatic, thankfully nobody was hurt. There's not many pictures of engines broken (for comparison) but I was rather surprised at what appears to have been evidence of a fairly nasty fire. The turbine part of the engine casing appears severely damaged.
No tail skid is one of the most obvious differences between the -200 and -300 models.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops, corrected the title. What an interesting set of photographs from the firefighters.
Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/15...7594153722446/
Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/15...7594153722446/
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, the most striking aspect is what seems to be fairly serious damage to the fuel tanks resulting in a significant fuel leak. Similar scenario to the AF Concorde.
Not something you'd like to see over the middle of the Pond. Good thing this was a ground run and not an in flight occurence. Possibly, the effect of this happening at normal airspeeds would result in a different trajectory for the expelled engine component so not sure if the damage would have been identical.
Looking forward to some comments from people in the know.
Not something you'd like to see over the middle of the Pond. Good thing this was a ground run and not an in flight occurence. Possibly, the effect of this happening at normal airspeeds would result in a different trajectory for the expelled engine component so not sure if the damage would have been identical.
Looking forward to some comments from people in the know.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Barajas
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JamesT73J
Oops, corrected the title. What an interesting set of photographs from the firefighters.
Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/15...7594153722446/
Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/15...7594153722446/
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JamesT73J
Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't pick that out, i.e. the damage on the opposite engine... if the initiating cause was common, i.e. one failure of one engine affecting the other, wouldn't that open a can of worms when it comes to maintaining the ETOPS approval for this airframe/engine combination?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, missed the post from Fernando_Covas, it does look as though a No. 1 disc travelled across the belly and nearly through No. 2.
And (if I'd been thinking) No. 2 would have shown quite a bit of other damage if that was one of its discs...
And (if I'd been thinking) No. 2 would have shown quite a bit of other damage if that was one of its discs...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in the western part of the United State of Europe
Age: 47
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be great to know what powersetting was applied!
(edit: wrote what Farnando wrote before..)
Last edited by klink; 3rd Jun 2006 at 19:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rest assured I won't make such an error again! To be honest I could care less about the exact type of aircraft (both have common powerplants with identical geometry to each other), I just thought it was an interesting picture, hence I put it initially in the spotter forum as I'd guessed that if there was any real mileage in it someone in the know would have already blogged it here in R&N.
I'm guessing that a failure of this nature is extremely rare (although that wouldn't console the poor buggers that experienced it), although I remember a thread some time ago about a 777 suffering an engine failure (again on the ground) and some expelled parts striking the opposite engine, though with only superficial damage caused.
The energy involved in sending a part out of one engine, through the fuselage, and almost straight through part of the other engine is mind boggling, but really illustrates some incredible engineering considering how long these things run for without any problems at all.
I'm guessing that a failure of this nature is extremely rare (although that wouldn't console the poor buggers that experienced it), although I remember a thread some time ago about a 777 suffering an engine failure (again on the ground) and some expelled parts striking the opposite engine, though with only superficial damage caused.
The energy involved in sending a part out of one engine, through the fuselage, and almost straight through part of the other engine is mind boggling, but really illustrates some incredible engineering considering how long these things run for without any problems at all.
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hhmmmm!..........maybe that n2 vibration indication was genuine after all 
CF6-80a for the -200 and CF6-80c2b6 for the -300
I know I'm going....i'll get me coat!
..........both have common powerplants..........
I know I'm going....i'll get me coat!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JamesT73J
...
The energy involved in sending a part out of one engine, through the fuselage, and almost straight through part of the other engine is mind boggling, but really illustrates some incredible engineering considering how long these things run for without any problems at all.
The energy involved in sending a part out of one engine, through the fuselage, and almost straight through part of the other engine is mind boggling, but really illustrates some incredible engineering considering how long these things run for without any problems at all.
Despite best efforts, it can still happen.
"Actually, Mr. Parkins," this visitor said brightly, after seeing the blue flame of an engine's exhaust, "you people are simply trying to contain and control fire, aren't you?"
"Yes," said Parkins, who had been up to his ears in trouble all week, "but that's simply all the devil has to do in h---, too, as I understand it."
(Mr. Horace Mansfield Horner, President, United Aircraft Corporation, in a 1952 briefing on Jet Engine Production before the Industrial College of the Armed Forces)
Last edited by barit1; 4th Jun 2006 at 01:38.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: aintsaying
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ had a similar self destruction of a early manufactured turbine disk in Brisbane, Australia. This occured in flight!
Boeing had for several years quietly did engine strut stiffening without really explaning why.
The reason why became obvious from then on.
These photos show that this plyon has been strengthened, otherwise the enine would be sitting on the ground.
Boeing had for several years quietly did engine strut stiffening without really explaning why.
The reason why became obvious from then on.
These photos show that this plyon has been strengthened, otherwise the enine would be sitting on the ground.
Just a couple of coments to get this back on the proper track.
The cross aircraft damage is unique to a rebound off the runway, as is the fuel tank damage and ground pool fire.
Some account will need to be taken of this for ETOPs (single engine uncontained failure), but it would probably have negligible impact on ETOPS
The cross aircraft damage is unique to a rebound off the runway, as is the fuel tank damage and ground pool fire.
Some account will need to be taken of this for ETOPs (single engine uncontained failure), but it would probably have negligible impact on ETOPS
Psychophysiological entity
I realise that after much of my lifetime around aircraft, I have no idea what provision is made for a major fuel leak.
It seems here that an attempt has been made to catch some spill, but imagine several tons dumped round a hot and damaged aircraft.
It seems here that an attempt has been made to catch some spill, but imagine several tons dumped round a hot and damaged aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One hopes that those big white tanks in the background are not fuel tanks (they do not seem to have any spill control areas around them). But if they are not fuel tanks, then what are they?