Uncontained engine failure at YSSY
Since it's the fan pulling the aircraft forward, of course the fan blades go forward and outwards if released
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this information will help the discussion:
AD 2011-0173R1 reasons: "Two operators of A330 aeroplanes fitted with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines reported finding extensive damage to engine air intake cowls as a result of acoustic panel collapse, most probably caused by panel disbonding. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the detachment of the engine air intake cowl from the engine, possibly resulting in ingestion of parts by, and consequence damage to, the engine, or injury to persons on the ground."
AD 2016-0086R1 reasons: "During shop visit, cracks were found in several primary structural parts of Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engine air intake cowls, specifically in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer boundary angles (OBA). In addition, several attachment links were found severely worn, and some became detached. In two cases, the thermal anti- ice (TAI) piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigation results show that the cracks are most likely due to acoustic excitation and vibration. A broken piccolo tube, if not detected and corrected, in conjunction with forward air intake cowl bulkhead damage, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer barrel, possibly resulting in damage to the engine or reduced control of the aeroplane."
AD 2016-0086R1 reasons: "During shop visit, cracks were found in several primary structural parts of Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engine air intake cowls, specifically in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer boundary angles (OBA). In addition, several attachment links were found severely worn, and some became detached. In two cases, the thermal anti- ice (TAI) piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigation results show that the cracks are most likely due to acoustic excitation and vibration. A broken piccolo tube, if not detected and corrected, in conjunction with forward air intake cowl bulkhead damage, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer barrel, possibly resulting in damage to the engine or reduced control of the aeroplane."
From the Trent failure photos posted by underfire (#22) it looks like the nacelle inner lining failure began at a seam or panel edge judging by the clean edge of the hole. The lining would probably be peeled off in the direction of the fan rotation, CW looking into the inlet. And the trailing edge of the tear (near the top) looks ragged.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all the cases of blade release from the fan, in the reports I've seen, the blades were released centrifugally, no forward motion.
Also, there was at least one incident where the shaft to the fan on an RB211 engine sheared releasing the entire fan which spun out forward and away from the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hell
Age: 47
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncontained things going in directions
Lots of discussion about which way and what way things go when they go out. This incident came to mind, which involved an MD-88. Perhaps it might dispel or confirm certain lines or reasoning expressed. Oh, and never sit in the back of the MD/DC jets...
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR9801.pdf
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR9801.pdf
Don't mix up fan disk failures (DC10 /MD88) with fan blade failures alone.
It's the tip portion of the blade that slides forward not the inner parts.
Meanwhile back to this incident. Any distortion of the fan airfoil from the breakup of the cowl inner barrel, at high power, is sure to cause the engine to go bang with or without debris ingestion.
It's the tip portion of the blade that slides forward not the inner parts.
Meanwhile back to this incident. Any distortion of the fan airfoil from the breakup of the cowl inner barrel, at high power, is sure to cause the engine to go bang with or without debris ingestion.
Except for the DC-10 over New Mexico where a CF6 fan blade was liberated and exited forward, walked up the fuselage, broke a window and the passenger was sucked out with his remains never to be found
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
When changing an engine one often has to swap the cowl from the u/s engine to the new one.
When changing an engine one often has to swap the cowl from the u/s engine to the new one.
I think the part numbers are SJ30020,SJ30361,SJ30810 and they are made by Bombardier. The cowl and EBU do not form part of the engine TCDS, so technically they are not part of the engine.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I know about what happens when a swap takes place, but the cowling came from RR in the first place, so RR is liable if they supplied a faulty product.
Airbus and RR would both be liable if the cowling is faulty.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reality, this issue has been an issue, and directives on corrective actions are in place.
It is evident from the Airbus directive, (not a RR directive), who is responsible.
It appears that either the directive is not sufficient ( there are many if/thens) or was not followed.
It is evident from the Airbus directive, (not a RR directive), who is responsible.
It appears that either the directive is not sufficient ( there are many if/thens) or was not followed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
The cowl is designed and supplied by Airbus, and built by Bombardier. There are no RR part numbers on the inlet cowl.
Last edited by Airmotive; 15th Jun 2017 at 13:59.