Saudi 744 engine drops off at CAI
#4 engine missing
If plugs are sooty, lean mixture in carburettor
Adjust valve clearances to tolerances
Ensure air hole in fuel tank is unobstructed
Remove any debris from float chambers
If engine still "missing," remove cylinder heads and de-coke them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, England
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the thread title should now be revised to 'Bits of Saudi 744 engine drop off at CAI'.
It appears to have been a significant incident, but not one meriting the title, or the implicit drama of the situation. Nothing to see here, move along...
It appears to have been a significant incident, but not one meriting the title, or the implicit drama of the situation. Nothing to see here, move along...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can see #1 & #4 engines from a 747 flight deck.
Only the nose cowl section though. You can also see a fair bit of the outer wing (and if it's a 747-400, the complete winglet too)
I look out the flight deck window to observe the outboard aileron to confirm the outboard aileron lockout actuator functions correctly.
.
Only the nose cowl section though. You can also see a fair bit of the outer wing (and if it's a 747-400, the complete winglet too)
I look out the flight deck window to observe the outboard aileron to confirm the outboard aileron lockout actuator functions correctly.
.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of a great log book entry I heard about way back when. {KC97?}"Whilst in cruise at eighteen thousand feet, the number four RPM, PRT RPM, Oil presure, fuel flow, and all indications for number four engine, fell from cruise readings to zero, followed a few seconds later by the number four engine which fell from its normall position on the wing to an unknown location between two small islands south of Goose Bay."
Last edited by clunckdriver; 22nd Jul 2010 at 13:24.
RE: Seeing the engine on wing
Once talked with a pilot on a A310 who was jumpseating a Pan Am out of Hambug when an engine blew its turbine at rotation spraying pieces all over the place.
The engine fire bell went off and the N1 and N2 went to zero (unusual for N2). After securing the engine by the book taking two firings of the fire bottles, the extra pilot went back to have a look. He scrunched down to look over the shoulder of a seated passenger and noted a large hole in the side of the engine but not flames. The woman passenger noticed him and asked if that hole was unusual. His reply was that it was only a minor problem and not to worry as they would have it looked at on the ground. Then when he got back to the cockpit he said holy sh** you should see the size of the hole in the side of that engine.
The engine fire bell went off and the N1 and N2 went to zero (unusual for N2). After securing the engine by the book taking two firings of the fire bottles, the extra pilot went back to have a look. He scrunched down to look over the shoulder of a seated passenger and noted a large hole in the side of the engine but not flames. The woman passenger noticed him and asked if that hole was unusual. His reply was that it was only a minor problem and not to worry as they would have it looked at on the ground. Then when he got back to the cockpit he said holy sh** you should see the size of the hole in the side of that engine.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo:
Same event, I'm sure.
(thinks: There's at least the possibility the vibs were sufficient to actually disengage the drive splines of the tower shaft, leaving the gearbox undriven. Since the GB drives the N2 tachometer, it would now read zero, even if the core were windmilling. Of course, fuel & lube pumps inop too.)
Once talked with a pilot on a A310 who was jumpseating a Pan Am out of Hambug when an engine blew its turbine at rotation spraying pieces all over the place.
The engine fire bell went off and the N1 and N2 went to zero (unusual for N2). After securing the engine by the book taking two firings of the fire bottles, the extra pilot went back to have a look. He scrunched down to look over the shoulder of a seated passenger and noted a large hole in the side of the engine but not flames. The woman passenger noticed him and asked if that hole was unusual. His reply was that it was only a minor problem and not to worry as they would have it looked at on the ground. Then when he got back to the cockpit he said holy sh** you should see the size of the hole in the side of that engine.
The engine fire bell went off and the N1 and N2 went to zero (unusual for N2). After securing the engine by the book taking two firings of the fire bottles, the extra pilot went back to have a look. He scrunched down to look over the shoulder of a seated passenger and noted a large hole in the side of the engine but not flames. The woman passenger noticed him and asked if that hole was unusual. His reply was that it was only a minor problem and not to worry as they would have it looked at on the ground. Then when he got back to the cockpit he said holy sh** you should see the size of the hole in the side of that engine.
(thinks: There's at least the possibility the vibs were sufficient to actually disengage the drive splines of the tower shaft, leaving the gearbox undriven. Since the GB drives the N2 tachometer, it would now read zero, even if the core were windmilling. Of course, fuel & lube pumps inop too.)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 89
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 losing an engine
The last 747 that I flew was a classic 200 series and as I remember one cannot see the wings nor the engines from the flight deck windows!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just didn't look hard enough!
Above is the sight line from the "design eye point", you can see even more if you lean forward a bit and put your head on the top of the glareshield !!
Of course the great little SP allowed you to see even more - although the engine noise was a bit louder as the engines were closer to the flight deck!
.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Romeo 14
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6000-ish hours on the 742F,,I never once saw an outboard exhaust cowl(or where one SHOULD be in this case) inflight, those pesky inboards get in the way. Just sayin'
That bit of trivia aside, can we all agree that this can not bode well for the future of the CF6-50 as we know it?
--heracles
That bit of trivia aside, can we all agree that this can not bode well for the future of the CF6-50 as we know it?
--heracles
can we all agree that this can not bode well for the future of the CF6-50 as we know it?
New engines break and they get fixed
Old engines break between overhaul periods and they get fixed.
As long as they stay fixed they are as good as new.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Romeo 14
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 27, 2010
SB-10-20
FOUR RECENT UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE EVENTS PROMPT NTSB TO ISSUE URGENT SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS TO FAA
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board today issued two urgent safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The first recommendation asks that the FAA require operators of aircraft equipped with a particular model engine to immediately perform blade borescope inspections (BSI) of the high pressure turbine rotor at specific intervals until the current turbine disk can be redesigned and replaced with one that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. The second recommendation asks the FAA to require the engine manufacturer to immediately redesign the disk. The NTSB issued an additional recommendation for a requirement that operators perform a second type of inspection and another recommendation related to the engine manufacturer regarding the installation of the replacement disk.
All four recommendations apply to the low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 (S3) rotor disk in the General Electric (GE) CF6-45/50 series turbofan engines that can fail unexpectedly when excited by high-pressure (HP) rotor unbalance.
An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines. Engine cases are not designed to contain failed turbine disks. Instead, the risk of uncontained disk failure is mitigated by designating disks as safety-critical parts, defined as the parts of an engine whose failure is likely to present a direct hazard to the aircraft.
In its safety recommendations to the FAA, the NTSB cited four foreign accidents, which the NTSB is either investigating or participating in an investigation led by another nation, in which the aircraft experienced an uncontained engine failure of its GE CF6-45/50 series engine.
The date, location, and circumstances of these four events (none had injuries or fatalities) are as follows:
On July 4, 2008, a Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) Boeing 747-300 experienced an engine failure during initial climb after takeoff from Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On March 26, 2009, an Arrow Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10F, about 30 minutes after takeoff from Manaus, Brazil, experienced loss of oil pressure in one engine. The pilots shut down the engine and diverted to Medellin, Columbia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On December 17, 2009, a Jett8 Cargo Boeing 747-200F airplane was passing through 7,000 feet above ground level (agl) when the flight crewmembers heard a muffled explosion and immediately applied left rudder. With one engine losing oil pressure, the airplane returned to land at Changi, Singapore. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore.
On April 10, 2010, an ACT Cargo Airbus A300B4 experienced an engine failure while accelerating for takeoff at Manama, Bahrain. The crew declared an emergency, rejected the takeoff, activated the fire suppression system, and evacuated the airplane. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Bahrain Ministry of Transportation - Civil Aviation.
The four recommendations to the FAA are as follows:
Do some research dude,, The "engines break between overhaul" line ain't working this time. The hot section boroscope interval has been reduced and reduced,,, still aint working. In addition, further research shows that this problem has been know since certification and was allowed due to the theory that ample warning of failure would be provided to the aircrew. Then in the early 2000's at least 3 of the major US carriers running the CF6-50 elected to disable/remove thier Engine Vibration Monitors,, with FAA concurence.
"Big Picture" is; (as my small mind see's it)
1- The FAA knew about this problem since conception, yet still certified the motor. (industry friendly)
2- The FAA allowed the Air Carriers to disregard the EVM's. (industry friendly)
3- The FAA, after repeated failures of the CF6-50 turbines gradually reduced the required inspection increment. (industry friendly)
4- The NTSB issues 2 (of 4) Urgent recommendations to the FAA ;requiring crushing inspection intervals (can the FAA be industry friendly again in this case?)
5 - AFTER these recommendations are made public, ANOTHER CF6-50 dynamicly disassembles it's turbine. (ah,, FAA?? what are you doing to do??)
The FAA, in my humble opinion can NOT afford to be "cool" on this one. The idea of a "knee-capped" CF6-50 is NOT pleasing to me either,, trust me.
Gonna be interesting here in a few months.
--heracles
SB-10-20
FOUR RECENT UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE EVENTS PROMPT NTSB TO ISSUE URGENT SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS TO FAA
Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board today issued two urgent safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The first recommendation asks that the FAA require operators of aircraft equipped with a particular model engine to immediately perform blade borescope inspections (BSI) of the high pressure turbine rotor at specific intervals until the current turbine disk can be redesigned and replaced with one that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. The second recommendation asks the FAA to require the engine manufacturer to immediately redesign the disk. The NTSB issued an additional recommendation for a requirement that operators perform a second type of inspection and another recommendation related to the engine manufacturer regarding the installation of the replacement disk.
All four recommendations apply to the low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 (S3) rotor disk in the General Electric (GE) CF6-45/50 series turbofan engines that can fail unexpectedly when excited by high-pressure (HP) rotor unbalance.
An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines. Engine cases are not designed to contain failed turbine disks. Instead, the risk of uncontained disk failure is mitigated by designating disks as safety-critical parts, defined as the parts of an engine whose failure is likely to present a direct hazard to the aircraft.
In its safety recommendations to the FAA, the NTSB cited four foreign accidents, which the NTSB is either investigating or participating in an investigation led by another nation, in which the aircraft experienced an uncontained engine failure of its GE CF6-45/50 series engine.
The date, location, and circumstances of these four events (none had injuries or fatalities) are as follows:
On July 4, 2008, a Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) Boeing 747-300 experienced an engine failure during initial climb after takeoff from Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On March 26, 2009, an Arrow Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10F, about 30 minutes after takeoff from Manaus, Brazil, experienced loss of oil pressure in one engine. The pilots shut down the engine and diverted to Medellin, Columbia. This investigation has been delegated to the NTSB.
On December 17, 2009, a Jett8 Cargo Boeing 747-200F airplane was passing through 7,000 feet above ground level (agl) when the flight crewmembers heard a muffled explosion and immediately applied left rudder. With one engine losing oil pressure, the airplane returned to land at Changi, Singapore. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore.
On April 10, 2010, an ACT Cargo Airbus A300B4 experienced an engine failure while accelerating for takeoff at Manama, Bahrain. The crew declared an emergency, rejected the takeoff, activated the fire suppression system, and evacuated the airplane. The NTSB is participating in the investigation that is being led by the Bahrain Ministry of Transportation - Civil Aviation.
The four recommendations to the FAA are as follows:
- Immediately require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform high pressure turbine rotor blade borescope inspections every 15 flight cycles until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor. (Urgent)
- Require operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to perform fluorescent penetrant inspections of CF6-45- 50- low pressure turbine stage 3 disks at every engine shop visit until the low pressure turbine stage 3 disk is replaced with a redesigned disk that can withstand the unbalance vibration forces from the high pressure rotor.
- Immediately require General Electric Company to redesign the CF6-45/50 low pressure turbine stage 3 disk so that it will not fail when exposed to high pressure rotor unbalance forces. (Urgent)
- Once General Electric Company has redesigned the CF6- 45/50 low pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 disk in accordance with Safety Recommendation [3], require all operators of CF6-45/50-powered airplanes to install the newly designed LPT S3 at the next maintenance opportunity.
Do some research dude,, The "engines break between overhaul" line ain't working this time. The hot section boroscope interval has been reduced and reduced,,, still aint working. In addition, further research shows that this problem has been know since certification and was allowed due to the theory that ample warning of failure would be provided to the aircrew. Then in the early 2000's at least 3 of the major US carriers running the CF6-50 elected to disable/remove thier Engine Vibration Monitors,, with FAA concurence.
"Big Picture" is; (as my small mind see's it)
1- The FAA knew about this problem since conception, yet still certified the motor. (industry friendly)
2- The FAA allowed the Air Carriers to disregard the EVM's. (industry friendly)
3- The FAA, after repeated failures of the CF6-50 turbines gradually reduced the required inspection increment. (industry friendly)
4- The NTSB issues 2 (of 4) Urgent recommendations to the FAA ;requiring crushing inspection intervals (can the FAA be industry friendly again in this case?)
5 - AFTER these recommendations are made public, ANOTHER CF6-50 dynamicly disassembles it's turbine. (ah,, FAA?? what are you doing to do??)
The FAA, in my humble opinion can NOT afford to be "cool" on this one. The idea of a "knee-capped" CF6-50 is NOT pleasing to me either,, trust me.
Gonna be interesting here in a few months.
--heracles