Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

United B777 engine failure

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

United B777 engine failure

Old 8th Mar 2021, 16:37
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 550
That's thermoacoustic imaging. That wikipedia article links to the article about the P&W technique called thermal acoustic imaging.
bsieker is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 08:45
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,929
Devil

So NOW I read that the (some of the ) pax have started a 'class action' against the airline for the 'emotional stress' of seeing the engine 'on fire'......despite the successful handling of the EMERGENCY and NIL pax injuries.

I reckon that ALL of the pax should be 'passing the hat around' and buying the flight crew a beer ...or two....or three....or as many as they can hold......
"Say When".....
That's an 'Aussie' viewpoint.!

Cheeerrrsss....
Ex FSO GRIFFO is online now  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 09:30
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 342
You know, being of european origin, when I was 10 years younger, I very much opposed the 'murican way of dealing with litigation.
However having matured somehow ... if the manufacturers and airlines can get away with calling this dismantled smoldering lump of scrap metal and the corresponding hole in the fuselage a "contained failure" ...
... buy the crew some bottles of the finest whisky on earth but sue the hell out of that airline, that after a merger gave away more modern planes with a more reliable engine option for these .....
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 12:11
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 411
A necessary part of having a court system and legal system open to all citizens (or that's the goal, obviously with inequalities still present) is the truism that people can and do file frivolous lawsuits (. . . .SLF/attorney).

This one, I'll venture to predict, will have a very short life. The airline did not breach any duties to anyone. Even if we set aside the rather important fact that the flight ended safely despite the challenges imposed by the emergency, and just looking at the alleged upsetting visual of an engine in serious failure and distress, as far as my legal knowledge goes there is no legal obligation on the part of an airline to guarantee that the inherently hazardous activity of travel by air will never present scary moments. (Yes, air travel is the safest mode of travel statistically, but it's still inherently hazardous -- it's just that people and machines have become very good at doing it safely.)

For some other community on some other forum, maybe this case is grist for the mill which grinds on and on about changing court rules so that "the loser pays" the other side's attorney's fees becomes the rule, not the exception, in courts in the U.S.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 15:19
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 71
Posts: 623
I suppose the aviation version of ambulance chasers abounds. If I’m distressed by what I see on TV, I turn it off or change the channel. The window shades were still working, right? To be fair, just about anyone would be scared spitless. These pax should kiss their loved ones and be grateful they still can.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 15:57
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,796
WillowRun 6-3

"Even if we set aside the rather important fact that the flight ended safely despite the challenges imposed by the emergency"

I'd have though that had already been allowed for, given that nobody is suing for serious injury, or death.

"the inherently hazardous activity of travel by air"

It's interesting to know how the lawyers view air transport.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 19:06
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 2
Big bucks $$$$ no matter who wins
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 19:44
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 394
Not really in a quota litis system. US attorneys only get paid a percentage of what their clients get, so if there's no payout they should not get paid. Drawback is that the defendant has to pay for his own attorney (while in other countries the losing party pays for both attorneys), so there's always an incentive for the defendant to settle rather than draw things out in court and incur higher fees.

Plus with a jury of laypersons adjudicating you may not expect the "air travel is inherently dangerous, so don't sue us for being scared" logic to prevail.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 20:18
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 411
Well, in the view of the law in the U.S. an inherently hazardous activity is something which carries very significant risks if not done correctly, significantly more severe than some concept of ordinary activities. Using dynamite in an excavation project is an example I seem to recall. It's very hazardous stuff, if it's not done the right way. The mode of transport has become very safe and reliable . . . but when the proverbial Swiss cheese holes fall or are pushed into alignment, "smoking hole in the ground". Thin aluminum tube, 30 thousand feet, perhaps Mach .8, not easy to walk away from something gone wrong.

Claiming injury from traumatic sightings of the engine in failure mode would not already discount for the safe return of the flight to Denver. I'm not a hundred percent convinced this is an actual claim being filed, but if it is, the suit would assert the injury being claimed didn't get canceled out by the fact of the safe return.

Of course there are the lawyers of ill-repute, chasing ambulances. There also are very highly experienced and effective attorneys who vindicate the rights of people harmed or killed by the kinds of negligence, malfeasance and other wrong-doing so knowledgeably decried on this and similar forums.

And I'd have to see it to believe it - how any advocate could present this case in a court of competent jurisdiction and give proper respect to the pilots, yet still claim the (supposedly) injured passengers are entitled to anything.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 20:53
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,796
WillowRun

"And I'd have to see it to believe it - how any advocate could present this case in a court of competent jurisdiction and give proper respect to the pilots, yet still claim the (supposedly) injured passengers are entitled to anything."

So the legal argument is "With hindsight, you shouldn't have been scared because it all ended well, even though you had no way of knowing that at the time" ?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 21:46
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 411
No. The legal argument is that the airline is not an absolute guarantor of a fun, care-free travel experience, or even an experience free of fear. There is no free-standing right to sue another party just on the basis of something happening that one does not like or enjoy. There must be a legal category of "duty", which the claim alleges that the party being sued has breached, or another similar category of legal right and corresponding legal remedy. (Sorry to get all pedantic, but you asked.)

There are people who become very upset and fearful when they travel by air, sometimes with knowledge of this tendency beforehand, sometimes without such knowledge. Do they have a right to claim legal injury because the plane took off, it went very fast down the runway, they felt the aircraft turn and bank, they were scared?

What's different here is that the engine failed and presented a pretty scary sight on the wing. But while that obviously occurred, the airline did not, in my view, breach any known, existing duty (in the legal sense of that term) owed to passengers. It had complied with all mandated inspection timelines and procedures, for example (I'm assuming this would be factually correct). It operated the flight in accord with all required rules and procedures. And the pilots .... well, that's been said already more than enough times.

It's just not feasible to say much of anything worth anyone's time to read, dissecting the notion that many parties who are sued over nonsense claims nevertheless settle just to get rid of the nuisance. Just this: paying to get rid of nonsense claims does occur. So do hard-headed courtroom tactics that work out to much the same as "loser pays" attorneys fees of the vindicated defendant.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 22:30
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,796
WillowRun

"But while that obviously occurred, the airline did not, in my view, breach any known, existing duty (in the legal sense of that term) owed to passengers. It had complied with all mandated inspection timelines and procedures, for example (I'm assuming this would be factually correct)."

Fair enough. That may or may not turn out to be a valid assumption.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 22:56
  #273 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 223
WillowRun 6-3

"It had complied with all mandated inspection timelines and procedures, for example (I'm assuming this would be factually correct)".

As David pointed out that may or may not be the case.
Look back at the FAA fine Southwest received when required maintenance procedures weren't carried out.


Press Release – FAA Seeks $12 million Civil Penalty Against Southwest Airlines

Last edited by 568; 10th Mar 2021 at 22:59. Reason: link
568 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 23:14
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 411
Sometimes lawyers get down to even lower repute because the profession has to say, "it depends." Oh well....

I think, after the prior United flight with a blade failure in the same type of engine, if the airline then failed to comply fully with all mandated inspection timelines and procedures...that could quite likely amount to something that the "it depends" expression is meant to cover.

Lurking in the background here is the fact that, at the time of a second anniversary of the ET 302 accident with far more significant losses and wrongful acts and the Lion Air 610 losses as well, a claim for fright, by itself and without any other harmful effects (reported so far), seems.... well, it seems trivial in comparison.

(As long as the prior United flight has become possibly relevant, just to note the interview of the Captain of that flight recently posted on another site was just a fascinating glimpse into a world an SLF ought to realize one knows virtually nothing, really, about.)
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2021, 23:50
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,196
If they are suing United (and assuming press reports are correct - which is a big assumption), I don't see that they have a case. The published inspection interval for the fan blades was 5,000 cycles, and (reportedly) the failed blade had ~1,600 cycles since inspected. So United had done due diligence.
OTOH, if they are suing Pratt, they might have a case. Given this was the third fan blade failure is less than 3 years - and all three had presumably passed inspection - P&W certainly had plenty of evidence that either their inspection process was inadequate, or the inspection interval was too long (or both).
All that being said, I really don't think just being scared is grounds for significant damages. If it was, there are plenty of drivers out there that have scared the out of me that I could be suing...
tdracer is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2021, 00:09
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,671
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 View Post
There also are very highly experienced and effective attorneys who vindicate the rights of people harmed or killed by the kinds of negligence, malfeasance and other wrong-doing so knowledgeably decried on this and similar forums.
As none of these outcomes remotely apply in this case, this just seems to be taking a self-appointed opportunity to brag about one's profession.
WHBM is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2021, 01:05
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 2
That's one jury vote (yours), let's see what the other jury members decide based on the arguments put forth by the lawyers on both sides.

The arguments may be a tad subjective, but the outcome is objective in deciding a level of fault
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2021, 10:15
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 68
Posts: 411
WHBM
Uh, no. The quote you criticize wasn't made gratuitously. See 265, GlobalNav asserted that aviation ambulance chasers "abound", usually meaning that they're abundant.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2021, 17:27
  #279 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 223
Back on track

Non sunt nobis tere

Is this a technical aviation forum or what?
568 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.