Uncontained engine failure B747-4f Longtail on t/o Maastricht Netherlands
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncontained engine failure B747-4f Longtail on t/o Maastricht Netherlands
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-...r-engine-fire/
https://cargofacts.com/allposts/busi...with-747-400f/
https://avherald.com/h?article=4e35302b&opt=0
Pics and video of the incident on several websites
A B747-4F had an uncointained engine failure on t/o , initial climb out of Maastricht ap in the Netherlands(Holland).
Engine debris came down in a local village close to the ap and damaged cars and injured several people. AIrcraft diverted to Luik which is over the border in Belgium.
https://cargofacts.com/allposts/busi...with-747-400f/
https://avherald.com/h?article=4e35302b&opt=0
Pics and video of the incident on several websites
A B747-4F had an uncointained engine failure on t/o , initial climb out of Maastricht ap in the Netherlands(Holland).
Engine debris came down in a local village close to the ap and damaged cars and injured several people. AIrcraft diverted to Luik which is over the border in Belgium.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin Eygelshoven (@r_eygelshoven) Tweeted:
Vliegtuig in Meerssen verliest onderdelen.... 😱 #meerssen #Boeing747 #failure @NUnl https://t.co/cX1k5zg86M
Vliegtuig in Meerssen verliest onderdelen.... 😱 #meerssen #Boeing747 #failure @NUnl https://t.co/cX1k5zg86M
Anyone know what type engines Longtail operates?
Also, despite the headline, I'm not sure that was 'technically' an uncontained failure. Bits coming out the back of the engine are not considered to be 'uncontained' as they come out at relatively low velocities and are unlikely to do damage to the aircraft structure.
"Uncontained" generally means high energy pieces coming out the side - tangential to the axis of the engine.
Also, despite the headline, I'm not sure that was 'technically' an uncontained failure. Bits coming out the back of the engine are not considered to be 'uncontained' as they come out at relatively low velocities and are unlikely to do damage to the aircraft structure.
"Uncontained" generally means high energy pieces coming out the side - tangential to the axis of the engine.
38 Type 747-412BCF First flight date 05/02/1991
Typical failure in the back stages of the turbine. Could be a vane cluster failure migrating back into some turbine blades or versa visa and the vanes then spit out the tail pipe and fall to the ground. many previous failures across all model of planes and engines . The engine may actually continue running at low power if the throttle is retarded early enough
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But not part of the job for the people underneath! Luckily there were only a few injuries, although unfortunately one included a child who burnt his hand picking up one of the fragments.
Pratt & Whitney having a bad day. This and the 777.
Thoughts on why the contemporaneous DEN United 777 merits wall to wall coverage on news outlets, but nothing about this, arguably, equivalent incident? Availability of in-flight footage? Twitter? Non-Pax? It was in Europe? Lazy reporting?
Thankfully no serious injuries reported in either case, but a reminder of how aviation safety impacts on all of us. And our houses. And our cars.
Thankfully no serious injuries reported in either case, but a reminder of how aviation safety impacts on all of us. And our houses. And our cars.
My thoughts exactly, and it isn't just the UK media, the German media looks to be similarly blinkered.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, widely reported both in The Netherlands and Belgium, including photos of the engine on fire and the damage on the ground. In fact, this incident even made PPRuNe before the United incident.
Comparing the 2 stories side by side gives a pretty good idea of which is more newsworthy:
One had substantial nos. of pax at risk (and able to comment)
One had video of an engine fire (and it's good quality video too!)
One had images of very large debris, taller than an SUV
One had 50% of the engines fail
I know which one I'd major on given the choice.
One had substantial nos. of pax at risk (and able to comment)
One had video of an engine fire (and it's good quality video too!)
One had images of very large debris, taller than an SUV
One had 50% of the engines fail
I know which one I'd major on given the choice.
The other had people taken to hospital due to injuries from parts falling from the plane to a town.
I'd take that as substantial nos of people at risk and able to comment.
The other had pictures of plenty of sharp debris piercing cars.
The other had a picture of the subject aircraft with engine on fire.
The other had 25% of engines out (ah, yes, no big deal of course because a brave captain of course would fly all the way to destination even with 50% out).
I'd take that as substantial nos of people at risk and able to comment.
The other had pictures of plenty of sharp debris piercing cars.
The other had a picture of the subject aircraft with engine on fire.
The other had 25% of engines out (ah, yes, no big deal of course because a brave captain of course would fly all the way to destination even with 50% out).
Perhaps it hinges on the definition, or perspective, of contained and uncontained. From the perspective of the plane itself, the Maastricht failure was 'contained', and therefore less newsworthy. (?)
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...Engine_Failure
Most gas turbine engine failures are “contained” which means that although the components might separate inside the engine, they either remain within the engine case or exit it via the tail pipe. This is a standard design feature of all turbine engines and generally means that the failure of a single engine on a multi engine aircraft will not present an immediate risk to the safety of the flight. Sizeable pieces of ejected debris may, though, present a hazard to persons on the ground.
However, an “uncontained” engine failure is likely to be a violent one, and can be much more serious because engine debris exits it at high speeds in other directions, posing potential danger to the pressurised aircraft structure, adjacent engines, the integrity of the flight control system and, possibly, directly to the aircraft occupants.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...Engine_Failure
Most gas turbine engine failures are “contained” which means that although the components might separate inside the engine, they either remain within the engine case or exit it via the tail pipe. This is a standard design feature of all turbine engines and generally means that the failure of a single engine on a multi engine aircraft will not present an immediate risk to the safety of the flight. Sizeable pieces of ejected debris may, though, present a hazard to persons on the ground.
However, an “uncontained” engine failure is likely to be a violent one, and can be much more serious because engine debris exits it at high speeds in other directions, posing potential danger to the pressurised aircraft structure, adjacent engines, the integrity of the flight control system and, possibly, directly to the aircraft occupants.
Last edited by jolihokistix; 23rd Feb 2021 at 09:33.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the latest picture on avherald:
which shows no gaping hole (although I'd love to see the other side, too), and given the fact that all pieces were found in a relatively small area, and no parts of a turbine (or other) disk were found, I would now consider this failure contained as well. Yes, it poses a hazard to people on the ground and it shouldn't happen, but it is no comparison to a "liberated" turbine (or fan or compressor) disk.
For the record, the NTSB considers the recent B772 engine failure at Denver to be contained, as well, since the blades were contained by the containment ring. One piece was still stuck in it, and another piece landed on the ground, but it was not ejected at high energy.
which shows no gaping hole (although I'd love to see the other side, too), and given the fact that all pieces were found in a relatively small area, and no parts of a turbine (or other) disk were found, I would now consider this failure contained as well. Yes, it poses a hazard to people on the ground and it shouldn't happen, but it is no comparison to a "liberated" turbine (or fan or compressor) disk.
For the record, the NTSB considers the recent B772 engine failure at Denver to be contained, as well, since the blades were contained by the containment ring. One piece was still stuck in it, and another piece landed on the ground, but it was not ejected at high energy.
One more factor which may or may not be relevant. Blades from this one fell on Europe. The other engine's parts fell on the continental USA.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATN: There you go. Following posts demonstrate why it is better to sit on your hands , for a bit, before bursting into print. Far from blinkered, media reports were quick and accurate. Straightforward reporting challenge though. No need for blinkers or bias that have been the buzzwords for reporting of other news events-eh ?
Very fortunate that the carnage on the ground was limited.
Very fortunate that the carnage on the ground was limited.