Uncontained engine failure B747-4f Longtail on t/o Maastricht Netherlands
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a technical term concerning the energy and direction of the fragments that leave the engine. It is of crucial importance for certification and also important to the integrity of the rest of the aircraft, and we should not misuse the terms just because there is a hazard to people on the ground.
A good way to put it is to call it a "catastrophic engine failure", which is both technically accurate and sufficiently alarmist to suit the press.
A good way to put it is to call it a "catastrophic engine failure", which is both technically accurate and sufficiently alarmist to suit the press.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really a matter of vocabulary. An uncontained engine failure is when engine parts penetrate and exit via the engine casing. This looks like an LP turbine failure where the parts exit via the exhaust.
And these blades were not hollow. A different kettle of fish.
It's being reported on the Boeing 777 engine failure thread (though not relevant to that event) that the Japanese CAA has banned operations by aircraft powered by the PW4000-94 (B744, B762/3, MD11).
One wonders what the Japanese know that the FAA and EASA don't.
One wonders what the Japanese know that the FAA and EASA don't.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Japanese have been very concerned for several years with engine parts possibly injuring folks on the ground. I'm guessing because of high density populations under flight paths.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In an ivory tower
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. The only commonality is the engine manufacturer and its regulator (Pratt & Whitney / FAA). Obvious lack of confidence.
The trend for countries to ban overflight on safety grounds for aircraft not on their own register started with the 737Max. It was a big step from the past, where under ICAO rules there was automatic acceptance of aircraft registered in other countries. Importation was a different story, with validation required.
FAA really needs to get things back in order.
The trend for countries to ban overflight on safety grounds for aircraft not on their own register started with the 737Max. It was a big step from the past, where under ICAO rules there was automatic acceptance of aircraft registered in other countries. Importation was a different story, with validation required.
FAA really needs to get things back in order.
The PW4000/94" engine has been in service for over 30 years with over 150 million flight hours - it's a big, heavily used fleet. The odd turbine failure that spits blades out the back when you have an engine with such a history is generally not that big of deal. Every engine type has the occasional 'metal in the tailpipe' incident - it happens. Sometimes things break.
I haven't had access to the PW4000/94" reliability statistics for over four years, but when I retired it was considerably less than one IFSD/100,000 flight hours standard that's used for extended ETOPS.
Combined with Longtail being a small time freight operator, me thinks this is a pretty dramatic over reaction by the Japanese authorities.
I haven't had access to the PW4000/94" reliability statistics for over four years, but when I retired it was considerably less than one IFSD/100,000 flight hours standard that's used for extended ETOPS.
Combined with Longtail being a small time freight operator, me thinks this is a pretty dramatic over reaction by the Japanese authorities.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following an engine change, the Longtail aircraft in question departed Liege some 10 minutes ago. That would, I presume, confirm that there was no significant (if any) damage to the fuselage.
