Thai Airways Boeing 777 Suffers Uncontained Engine Failure In Bangkok
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thai Airways Boeing 777 Suffers Uncontained Engine Failure In Bangkok
A Thai Airways Boeing 777 suffered an uncontained engine failure in the early hours of yesterday morning. The aircraft was not airborne at the time, and as such abandoned its takeoff attempt.
A Thai Airways flight to Zurich was hit by a 12-hour delay yesterday. The reason for the delay was an uncontained engine failure during takeoff. Thankfully, the aircraft was able to slow down enough on the runway to return to the terminal, albeit on the other side. According to photos shared on social media, a huge hole was visible in the side of the engine.
https://simpleflying.com/thai-uncont...ngine-failure/
A Thai Airways flight to Zurich was hit by a 12-hour delay yesterday. The reason for the delay was an uncontained engine failure during takeoff. Thankfully, the aircraft was able to slow down enough on the runway to return to the terminal, albeit on the other side. According to photos shared on social media, a huge hole was visible in the side of the engine.
https://simpleflying.com/thai-uncont...ngine-failure/
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that the operator has been correctly reported as Thai, it's either a Trent-powered B773 or a GE-powered B77W. The photo doesn't look like it's a Trent.
ICAO designators are assigned primarily on the basis of performance differences that are relevant to ATC, for example the extra 30,000 lbf of thrust on the B77W.
I think the main reason for a different code is that the 300ER has an increased wingspan, not due to the different type of engines.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems, from the Avherald report, that the aircraft was HS-TKL which is equipped with GE90-115B engines.
Pictured here at Heathrow:
http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=27080
Pictured here at Heathrow:
http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=27080
Last edited by KelvinD; 22nd Oct 2019 at 08:17. Reason: Added photo link
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though normally airport stands are classified by ICAO Code Letter, the second part of which determines which aircraft type(s) can be accommodated on a given stand. That, of course, is why the B77W was designed with a 64.8 m wingspan so that it would still fit on a Code E stand (up to 65 m span) as used by the rest of the 777 family.
Anyway, the important question - now resolved - was whether the incident as reported involved one of Thai's B773s (all Trent-powered) or one of their B77Ws (in which case it can only have been a GE90).
It's now confirmed that it was the latter, no doubt much to Derby's relief.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on the safety issue....
The FAA issued an AD removing 8 GE90-115B engines from service.
The AD says the other engine was also damaged by the liberated turbine...
This emergency AD was prompted by an event that occurred on October 20, 2019, in which a Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane powered by GE GE90-115B model turbofan engines experienced an uncontained high-pressure turbine (HPT) failure that resulted in an aborted takeoff. Debris impacted the aircraft fuselage and the other engine. Uncontained HPT failure, if not addressed, could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane.
FAA EAD 2019-21-51: General Electric Company GE90-115B Turbofan Engine Models Fitted to B777-300ER Aircraft
The FAA issued an AD removing 8 GE90-115B engines from service.
The AD says the other engine was also damaged by the liberated turbine...
This emergency AD was prompted by an event that occurred on October 20, 2019, in which a Boeing Model 777-300ER airplane powered by GE GE90-115B model turbofan engines experienced an uncontained high-pressure turbine (HPT) failure that resulted in an aborted takeoff. Debris impacted the aircraft fuselage and the other engine. Uncontained HPT failure, if not addressed, could result in release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible loss of the airplane.
FAA EAD 2019-21-51: General Electric Company GE90-115B Turbofan Engine Models Fitted to B777-300ER Aircraft
the rule basis typically addresses in-flight without regard for ricochet off the runway sufficient to take out the last remaining engine
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AD unsafe condition statement in the recent AD is the standard language used in FAA ADs for uncontained engine failure issues due to the potential for catastrophic damage to the airplane.
To elaborate a bit - the Advisory Circular for rotor burst requires a 'one-in-twenty' analysis - i.e. you need to show that the probability of catastrophic damage due to a rotor burst is no greater than 5% So, by definition, there is a small probability that any uncontained engine failure could be catastrophic.
Video was too long for the simple message of an AD being issued.
Raising questions about what he doesn't understand is not of much interest to the cause nor the corrective action.
Raising questions about what he doesn't understand is not of much interest to the cause nor the corrective action.
Well, I've learned something new. to me a 773 was a B777-300/300ER. I suspect to most people it is the same.
Anyway, where are all the RR haters? Strangely quiet I see. If this was a Trent there would be howls of 'time to ground this type' .
Hypocrisy.
Anyway, where are all the RR haters? Strangely quiet I see. If this was a Trent there would be howls of 'time to ground this type' .
Hypocrisy.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're getting way too detailed in this thread and again much is wrong, although nice eye-candy. Again it doesn't add much to the thread subject regarding what failed and was uncontained , and why. The how and what fix is appropriate. is known by the manufacturer and the FAA.
There are many ways an inter-stage seal can screw up but causing an uncontained disk or blades in this case are unlikely. The interstage seal by itself can be liberated and be uncontained by spearing out through a localized hole in the engine case, like a spring hoop and be followed by broken blade debris in a shot-gun pattern. The seal itself may have sufficient energy to make it all the way across the distance to the other side of the fuselage by bouncing off the runway.
If more details of what actually did happen turn up then there may be room for discussion in this thread, but the videos above don't add answers to the fundamental questions regarding this incident.
There are many ways an inter-stage seal can screw up but causing an uncontained disk or blades in this case are unlikely. The interstage seal by itself can be liberated and be uncontained by spearing out through a localized hole in the engine case, like a spring hoop and be followed by broken blade debris in a shot-gun pattern. The seal itself may have sufficient energy to make it all the way across the distance to the other side of the fuselage by bouncing off the runway.
If more details of what actually did happen turn up then there may be room for discussion in this thread, but the videos above don't add answers to the fundamental questions regarding this incident.
