Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

American 763 takeoff incident, ORD

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

American 763 takeoff incident, ORD

Old 29th Oct 2016, 09:12
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For sure it is a write off... Glad everyone got off and only a few minor injuries... Well done to the crew.

Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 09:30
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For sure it is a write off
Naah! New wing and off we go!
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 09:36
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Globally where the money takes me
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Listening to the ATC footage, it took quite a while till they ordered the Evac, but they did! Who was smarter, These AA guys or our SQ friends and their tripple recently? I see both rather simmilar, albight this fire sure seemed to have more punch!
old freightdog is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 09:45
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the first post:

a 763 suffered a tyre blowout on takeoff from ORD. Lots of smoke, but aircraft appears substantially intact
Oh dear. Reminds me of this:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...aJK0s-eFgBPRDA

Apologies to the OP. I know information kind of trickles in, but it tickled me.
It's OK to laugh as nobody was hurt...!
16024 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 11:32
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Listening to the ATC footage, it took quite a while till they ordered the Evac, but they did! Who was smarter, These AA guys or our SQ friends and their tripple recently? I see both rather simmilar, albight this fire sure seemed to have more punch!
You can't tell the time between being stopped and when they ordered the evacuation. It's 1:50s between when they said they were stopping and when they told the tower they were evacuating.

No you can't compare the two fires. In the videos of this fire you can see intense flame reaching to 20 metres and the damage is substantial. I understand the SIA fire was extinguished in 5 minutes.

Clearly, if there was this kind of fire in the Singapore airlines fire you would expect the same kind of panic in the cabin and unless there were other safety reasons not to evacuate an evacuation more than likely would have occurred.

I still find it incomprehensible that people think the Singapore crew would let their passengers burn alive.

Last edited by bud leon; 29th Oct 2016 at 11:44.
bud leon is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 12:47
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
GE has previously expressed concern regarding the use of PMA turbine blades (i.e. aftermarket blades). Their turbine disc life limits are based on the OEM blades - the PMA blades are typically a different material and significantly heavier than the OEM blades, which throws those turbine disc life limit analysis out the window...
This seems a bit odd. How could such inferior 'aftermarket' blades possibly be certified for use?
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 12:56
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between Foxrock and a hard place
Posts: 115
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I can't seem to quote.

Regarding the slide at door 2L, yes, after seeing that panicky guys evac video, you can hear the No.1 spooling down as he exits. That would put the time of the video of the 2L slide inflating earlier. In which case, hopefully the order to evacuate wasn't rushed or worse, given by the cabin crew without notifying the pilots.

Glad all on board are well, anyway.

Busy week for the NTSB!
sprite1 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 12:59
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This seems a bit odd. How could such inferior 'aftermarket' blades possibly be certified for use?
after market stuff is viewed by the some as "if it looks like a duck and quacks likes a duck...."

Meanwhile we're getting off the track since we don't have any clues yet as to what part broke

I really doubt it has anything to do with these blades
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 13:00
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 801
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
causes?

Not sure yet as some conflicting info

Both NTSB and FAA and Ground sources indicated the fire was due to tire burst (from runway debris) causing debris to strike the wing fuel tanks etc but the airline made claims of un-contained engine failure

haven't seen a photo close up of No. 2 so cannot check state of damage but the engine looks quite intact here
https://d2lzghgvw1jtbn.cloudfront.ne..._225470058.jpg

there is some bad smoke damage to the rear cabin Right hand side of this AA 767 but I cannot see a major breach or windows melted, the skin has been damaged - certainly lucky again with the wind blowing the fire away from fuselage as in SQ and EK accidents

the door 2L chute blowing around was due to ENG no.1 still running and was shut down during EVAC and chute was OK to use then

Last edited by rog747; 29th Oct 2016 at 16:16.
rog747 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 13:00
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh dear. Reminds me of this:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...aJK0s-eFgBPRDA

Apologies to the OP. I know information kind of trickles in, but it tickled me.
It's OK to laugh as nobody was hurt...!
Was thinking more about "The wing is not on fire"

On a more serious note:
The photo of the burned aircraft is yet another good example to show the relevance of wind-direction during on ground fires...
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 15:54
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Avherald reporting another high speed rejected takeoff by a UAL 767 due to failure of the port engine. Barcelona.
b1lanc is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 16:03
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 485
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rog747 Glad that lessons were learnt that day
chaps1954 is online now  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 17:30
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 71
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting......

20 injured as American Airlines jet catches fire at Chicago's O'Hare airport - LA Times
A large rounded piece of metal believed to have come from the plane smashed through the roof of a UPS facility on the airport grounds and bounced off the floor, according to an airport worker. "It looks like a piece of a turbine disk from a jet engine," the worker said, adding it was too hot to touch.
......
number0009 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 18:33
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are conflicting reports about this incident.
FAA and NTSB reported tyre blow out.
Airline reported engine malfunction.
Gossip from Chicago suggested FOD from rwy caused tyre blow out and fragments penetrated fuel tank.
Perhaps the only reliable thing is that it happened during the t/o run. In which case commendation to crew for their fast and correct response.
Chronus is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 20:20
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,553
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
As opposed to the silence from Singapore investigating authority (and others who keep their cards close to to their vests) we can look forward to timely factual releases from the NTSB
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 20:48
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
This seems a bit odd. How could such inferior 'aftermarket' blades possibly be certified for use?
All it really takes is for a DER to sign off that the parts are "functionally equivalent".
This may be a complete red herring for this accident, but maybe not. At best, PMA parts have been something of a dirty secret of the industry - for but many people (me included, and I was a DER) it's been an accident waiting to happen. The engine manufacturer (and airframe manufacturer) are required to perform exhaustive testing and analysis to prove that the various parts are airworthy before they can be certified. But under PMA, someone can 'reverse engineer' the part and make a Chinese copy, get a DER to sign off that it's 'functionally equivalent', and it becomes a perfectly legal, acceptable replacement part without having to perform all that troublesome cert testing. Since the PMA doesn't have all the overhead of testing, etc., they can significantly undercut the OEM on price.


For a long time, PMA was pretty much limited to 'consumables' - things like filters, seals, etc. Although even that can go wrong - back 10 or 15 years ago there was a big mess on the 737NG when a batch of PMA fuel filters started coming apart in service and thoroughly contaminating the fuel control system they were supposed to protect (I'm thinking there was an AD to get them out of service).
Now days it's extended to internal engine components - such as turbine blades (part of my DER recurrent training several years ago was how to certify PMA turbine blades ). A while back, as their market share sank, Pratt and Whitney started making PMA turbine blades for the CFM. Now, I suspect P&W PMA blades are fine, other PMA blade manufactures not so much
tdracer is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 23:49
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you, TD for your insight. I understand PMA parts don't even require extensive testing if they can show, strictly on paper, that their specs are the same as the OEM. This seems to be, at best, a questionable practice.

I recall a time when one of our engines came off wing for some unscheduled maintenance. The OEM refused to overhaul the engine with the non-OEM parts, despite the parts being fully compliant with the regulators. I believe there were filters and an IDG cooling assembly involved. The filters should have been a non-issue since they were being replaced as part of the maintenance, but it all got some squawks from the folks at the OEM maintenance facility.

This convinced our maintenance chief (exec) to never use non-OEM replacement parts again - at least on the engine cores. ACM bits and hydraulic fittings, two areas where you would think one would want maximum reliability, continue to be allowed to use the non-OEM, PMA approved bits. Go figure.

Back to this event: If a PMA turbine blade is heavier than the OEM, would it not be an issue for not only balance, but stress on the supporting disk?
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 00:16
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Back to this event: If a PMA turbine blade is heavier than the OEM, would it not be an issue for not only balance, but stress on the supporting disk?
Obviously yes and also significantly affect all sorts of fatigue limits requiring full up engine cert testing.

However it is a very big stretch to even imagine things going that far so lets wait for some more facts to develop.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 00:34
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Back to this event: If a PMA turbine blade is heavier than the OEM, would it not be an issue for not only balance, but stress on the supporting disk?
It's not uncommon for turbine blades - even OEM blades (and sometimes compressor blades) that there is a requirement to change them as a complete set - this is often the case when there is a change to the blade design to improve durability and/or performance. It's not just balance, it can be things like blade cooling (if they are not changed as a set the new blades my 'hog' cooling air meaning the old blades are not properly cooled, or visa-versa).
tdracer is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 00:41
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As opposed to the silence from Singapore investigating authority (and others who keep their cards close to to their vests) we can look forward to timely factual releases from the NTSB
Except that there isn't silence. A brief interim report has been issued with interim safety recommendations, as is common practice. The report also indicates that they will be investigating other safety related aspects and it may well be evacuation decisions are one of them.

As the 16th busiest airport in the world Singapore has relatively few incidents (its configuration being one reason I imagine), and Singapore being so small has little domestic aviation. Singapore doesn't even rate on country aircraft incident statistics. Unless Singapore's AAIB employs expatriates I very much doubt it has the aircraft investigation experience that North America has.
bud leon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.