American 763 takeoff incident, ORD
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Globally where the money takes me
Posts: 25
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the first post:
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...!
a 763 suffered a tyre blowout on takeoff from ORD. Lots of smoke, but aircraft appears substantially intact
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...!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 61
Posts: 121
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!
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 54
Posts: 1,692
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...
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems a bit odd. How could such inferior 'aftermarket' blades possibly be certified for use?
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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 640
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...!
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...!
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...
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 70
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
......
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 75
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.
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.
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
This seems a bit odd. How could such inferior 'aftermarket' blades possibly be certified for use?
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 54
Posts: 1,692
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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?
However it is a very big stretch to even imagine things going that far so lets wait for some more facts to develop.
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?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 61
Posts: 121
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
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.
