BA16 PAN and EHAM divert 15/6

[PaperTiger]

Incident: British Airways B772 near Amsterdam on Jun 15th 2010, multiple technical problems, engine damage

What could have damaged the engine 5 hours ago ?

[777AV8R]

OUCH!

Can't see the forward fan section but it looks like a something came apart inside there...compressor, turbine, some both. Looks like it was contained, though.

[Fume Event]

This is a very unusual incident for this engine type. Is there any chance that the way the engine failed was conducive with the ingestion of volcanic ash?

[Swedish Steve]

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.

[Flightmech]

Looks like a (big!) failure of the LH thrust reverser C duct inner barrel and exhaust nozzle.

[PaperTiger]

How would a contained engine failure generate mutliple system faults ?

Unrelated, coincidence or more damage than the photo seems to show ?

[Swedish Steve]

How would a contained engine failure generate mutliple system faults ?

Well, with the heat shielding of the D duct missing, a lot of the engine sensors are exposed to the elements. Especially the fire wires. Good chance one of those fractured.

[Flightmech]

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?

[Less Hair]

Looks similar to this MAS 777 at Stockholm before.

Photos: Boeing 777-2H6/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

[spannersatKL]

Also occurred to a CX B777 at BKK a few years ago...

[wingview]

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).

[Dave]

So if they flew for 5 hours that implies the engine was running normally????

Engine failure on a twin is a land ASAP!

[Optimus-Prime]

Some pictures ...

[lomapaseo]

So if they flew for 5 hours that implies the engine was running normally????

Yes

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.

[pattern_is_full]

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

[Flightmech]

Dave,

As discussed although the damage looks substantial it's not actually an engine failure. Hence they didin't land ASAP or at the nearest suitable airport.

[2Planks]

Could this be seen from the Cabin, realising that it was a night flight and most pax would be asleep?

[Timothy Claypole]

It can't be seen from the cabin at all as it's completely shielded by the wing.