747 engine falls off
 

Cargo Plane Completes Flight Despite Engine Falling Off

WFTV POSTED: 6:58 am EDT October 21, 2004

CHICAGO -- Even minus a little engine that could, this cargo plane did.


A cargo plane from Chicago landed safely at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after dropping an engine somewhere over Michigan.

The Kalitta Air jet took off from O'Hare International Airport late Wednesday and was bound for New York's Kennedy International Airport when it reported mechanical problems with one of its engines, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said.

The Boeing 741-R was able to fly but was diverted as a safety precaution to Detroit, where it landed without incident, FAA officials said. No one was injured.

After the landing, airline personnel discovered the engine was completely gone, FAA officials said.

Michigan authorities searched Thursday for the engine, which may have fallen into Lake Michigan, the FAA said.

Seems they have some experience flying three-engined 747s:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/224038/L

BTW: Read the caption; this one was intentional, although it does say a crack in the no.3 engine mount was found in HNL. I guess the same happened here, only they didn't find out before they took off from ORD.

Still, good riddens it happened on their way to JFK and not during the next leg over the Atlantic :ooh:

Well I suppose if an engine is going to fail better to get rid of it completely. It's only dead weight after all. := :uhoh:

Brings back memories of that awful day that an EL-AL 747 had an engine failure after t/o from Amsterdam. In that case the engine also left the wing and damaged the wing LE. During approach back to Amsterdam the crew lost control and the freighter crashed into an appartment building.

The Kalitta crew was lucky.javascript:smilie(':ok:')

Is this not press pack sensationalism?

I seem to recall that in the event of a fire that the bolts holding the engine Pod to the mountings were designed to fail and let the engine drop away?

Errrhmmm....AMS 0ct. 92

Story a bit different.

From Air Disaster com:
Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft's no.3 engine separated from the wing, tearing out the leading edge slats and the no.4 engine when it did so. The trailing edge flaps on the right wing were also severely damaged. As the crew began to slow the airplane as they turned onto final, the right wing began to stall due to the lack of leading and trailing edge devices. Slowing through 160 knots with the flaps extended to 25°, the right wing entered a deep stall and the crew lost control of the airplane. The 747 impacted an apartment building in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam at nearly a vertical nose down attitude. Corroded pins within the engine pylon caused the engine to separate.

regards

There have been a number of cases over the years of engines falling off 747s.

What surprises me about this is the high percentage of cases where this happens to a cargo 747F, when these are in the minority of the overall 747 fleet (and probably less intensively utilised as well). What is it about carrying cargo that seems to increase the chances of this ? It's not anything in the basic 747F design as a number where this has occurred were ex-passenger aircraft, and it has always been passenger versions that reached the highest number of hours.

Because keeping one's aircraft in tip-top shape seems to be of lesser importance when you're flying boxes instead of passengers. EPR/EGT limits exceeded? Oil leak? Hard landing? Heavy turbulence? Well boxes don't complain do they? The worst that usually happens is a tech stop or a precautionary landing, and only when one flies live animals or perishables does the time taken to delivery really matter.

Too bad sometimes things really do go very badly wrong.... The Bijlmerramp is an excellent example. :*

Not too long ago one of those white CAL/El-Al freighters we get frequently at SPL blew some tyres on takeoff from JFK and when it put the gear down on approach into SPL 06 it lost some bits of its wing-to-body fairing over a populated area. Just another day in the polder, I guess :rolleyes:

My names Turkish:

Negative, Turkish. The fuse pins are primarily there to allow the pod to detach in the event of an overstress - as in the Anchorage incident, where an Evergreen freighter (747-100???) lost an engine in the climb, in exceptionally severe turbulence. They're stainless steel, IIRC - much less likely than the airframe to melt in a fire!

R1

What, that lever isn't the ENGINE JETTISON control? always wondered why it's not on the checklist.....

WHBM: It's not cycles; the main difference between Freighters and PAX birds are the heavy weight flights. Freighters routinely take off at MGW and land close to MLW whereas with PAX birds these upper limits are visited less frequently. It's a tough life as a Freighter.

atlast
 

Then why do I never see a Lufthansa, Cathay, Northwest, Atlas or JAL 747-200F lose any bits? :confused:

Fuse Pins-Designed so that if an engine seizes with all the turning mass inside the engine that it seperates at the pylon and departs than to take the entire wing off!
atlast is correct-freighters routinely takeoff at max weights and land at max weights.

classic

A-Floor.

Your knowledge on these matters seem to be somewhat limited. Why not think what you type before you type and end up looking like a doorknob.

Just to refresh your memory:

Quote

Because keeping one's aircraft in tip-top shape seems to be of lesser importance when you're flying boxes instead of passengers. EPR/EGT limits exceeded? Oil leak? Hard landing? Heavy turbulence? Well boxes don't complain do they? The worst that usually happens is a tech stop or a precautionary landing, and only when one flies live animals or perishables does the time taken to delivery really matter.

Unquote

To your information rules are the same for freight and PAX. Reading your comments make me happy that I fly mostly boxes.

AD

On which panel is the "Engine in Transit" Light?

AD
 

I know the rules are the same. The point is whether some cargo-only operators operate to the same standards their PAX and mixed counterparts do, or perhaps maybe not.

Since you "fly boxes" you might as well comment on the point I put forth in my post instead of saying I'm a doorknob for being a bit emotional. :ok:

@atlanta
 

rules are the same for freight and PAX


Which rules?

You are kidding! Aren't you?

regards

Eerily similar to the AA DC-10 in Chicago in 1979........structural failures of any sort are serious......

Engine type?
 

Gentlemen,

I believe all of these incidents have been with P&W JT-9 engines.
Is there anyone who can point out what kind of fault makes these engines detach from the pylon?
Could turbine seizure be a probable cause? I can recall that this has been an issue in the past with Pratts. How is that nowadays?

Regards,

Ballpoint.