BA16 PAN and EHAM divert 15/6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA16 PAN and EHAM divert 15/6
Incident: British Airways B772 near Amsterdam on Jun 15th 2010, multiple technical problems, engine damage
What could have damaged the engine 5 hours ago ?
What could have damaged the engine 5 hours ago ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 73
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks to me as though the left D duct disintegrated. You can see the jagged remains of it, and some pieces that have been put inside the engine. This is a known B777 problem on the Trent engined aircraft. The nozzle has also ripped off. Not surprising, as it is supported by the D duct at its aft end. I would expect that the engine is OK.
We had a similar incident here in ARN a couple of years ago with a MH B777. Needed a new D duct and nozzle, but not much more.
We had a similar incident here in ARN a couple of years ago with a MH B777. Needed a new D duct and nozzle, but not much more.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 73
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would a contained engine failure generate mutliple system faults ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't appear to be a contained engine failure as such, or indeed an engine failure at all. Possible the core of the engine is intact, and just part of the C duct has let go and damaged the exhaust nozzle on the way?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happend 5 hours before landing and both engines were running the whole flight. They had to divert (to AMS) because they used more fuel than predicted. Due to head wind or because of damage which was more then they knew (engine and wing).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if they flew for 5 hours that implies the engine was running normally????
At cruise there would be very little change in engine parameters. Of course the drag would increase and the engine RPMs would go up when they powered up at lower altitudes.
Similar has happened over the years on the B747-100 and 200 which used to drop engine tail cones every now and then. Pilots never knew it until they landed.
I'm seeing broken nacelle parts that are all aft of the actual turbine sections, so isn't this more equivalent to a car muffler/exhaust manifold falling off than any failure of the engine itself (the part that spins and burns and produces power)?
And the loss of the aerodynamic ducting (esp. all those jagged edges of honeycomb from the nacelle) led to both extra drag, and disrupted thrust from the fan, resulting in the extra fuel burn and eventual diversion?
(Plus some drag from e.g. that flap actuator fairing that took a hit from debris)
A 777 Trent in happier condition: Photos: Boeing 777-232/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
And the loss of the aerodynamic ducting (esp. all those jagged edges of honeycomb from the nacelle) led to both extra drag, and disrupted thrust from the fan, resulting in the extra fuel burn and eventual diversion?
(Plus some drag from e.g. that flap actuator fairing that took a hit from debris)
A 777 Trent in happier condition: Photos: Boeing 777-232/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
