Water tanks at a guess, either for hanger use or for hanger fire system

Lomapaseo,
May have been what happened here but not strictly true.
There have been instances of an uncontained failure hitting the opposite engine. As has been said the velocity that the bit leaves, especially the HP side has no problem in passing through a couple of skins of the cargo bay.:)
Dont forget the engine actually sits below the fuselage on many aircraft.

The one I remember was the DC10 in OKC. One engine let go and debris hit the opposite engine. And that was a fan failure !:} Fortunately he had a spare in the tail and amazingly the debris going back did not ingest into #2

Re Ful tank penetration after the BA B737 with the uncontained failure in UK that puntured the tank at the under wing inspection panels, the under wing inspections were beefed up.

Actually it was National over NM, and landed at ABQ. See http://aviation-safety.net/database/...1103-0&lang=en

But you are right - a fan blade leaving the hub of #3 engine travelled under the fuselage and struck the accy section of #1. I believe that #2 did suffer minor FOD but kept running.

I believe the entire industry learned a good deal from various aspects of this accident, including flight crews NOT experimenting with the autothrottles!

What's your point?

So the 762 could sustain similar damage at V1! :eek:

I wouldn't fancy the chances of an a/c in that condition taking to the air and successfully limping back to the field. I suspect the outcome would be very similar to that of Concorde. :uhoh:

Exactly.

But with 2 donks vs 4, the risk is cut in half. :hmm:

Barit,
Yes thats the one !! Had a senior moment over the location:)

I have the photos somewhere but on No 1 the compete gearbox sheered off held by the Hydraulic hoses and Generator cables !!
The No. 3 of course looked like a trick cigar ;)

Also a piece of debris hit one of the aft RH windows and a passenger departed the aircraft - again missing the No 2 engine:uhoh:

I take it the aircraft will be an insurance write-off?...

Don't be so sure Dash 7,

Visually it didn't look that bad. Though of course a proper survey would tell

LA Fire Dept account
 

http://lafd.********.com/2006/06/boe...ses-major.html

"Firefighters immediately applied firefighting foam and were able to control the fire within sixteen minutes."

Sixteen minutes seems a long time, what is the definition of "under control" in these circumstances?

Creaser

And if in flight?
 

Is it reasonable to suggest that had this happened in flight:
1. The air stream would have constrained the fire to immediately behind the engine and not have affected the fuselage and wing as severely?
2. In spite of the blade exit velocity, the air stream might (possibly) have deflected a chunky blade aft of the other engine?
3. The fire handle may have been pulled more rapidly :) ?
thnx

Previous Similar Trijet mutual fodding
 

Anybody recall (or have a link to) the L-1011 or DC-10 take-off incident where #1's debris fodded #3 and I believe that the tail-mounted #2 also caught some. They got airborne, dumped and landed again without further trauma.
.
I recall reading the citation for an ALPA award for the crew. As I recall, that was an uncontained bounce off the runway surface into #3.
.
Happened some time within the last 7 years within the Continental US (IIRC it was between 99 and 2002).

The turbine blade that hit the right engine and the blades that caused the fuel leaks under the right tank had to bounce off the asphalt so if it was in flight probably would not have hit the right engine. Who knows what would have happened in flight if that turbine had passed through the fusilage. Thank God those pilots wrote up the left engine not delivering full climb power at high altitude requiring the full power runup.

This one perchance.

Don't bet on it. It was a heck of a lot more than a turbine blade sticking out of #2, and it cut quite a swath enroute.

I think a lot of turbine blades made the punctures on the right side. Only saw one make it to the right engine.

90%, according to this source:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/06/Navigation/177/207118/Pictures+GE+investigates+cause+of+American+Airlines+Boeing+7 67-200+uncontained+CF6-80A+engine.html


By the way, I imagine the results would be different, if this happened in flight, with the airstream taking all the debris back. The damage to the right engine could also have happened from debris bounced off the tarmac.
But, what would happen if this occured during the takeoff run, say around V1? Still not enough airstream to deflect all the debris, and still tarmac below to bounce off some debris back to the fuselage...
What do you think?

I'd have to agree that the cross engine and tank access panel damage is rebound and unlikely to have happened in flight. There have been enough large engine uncontained failures that haven't resulted in further structural damage to support this view.
Check your ADI's when parked on a gate. You'll usualy be 0.5 or so degrees nose up. Reason being that should there be a major fuel spill it can be directed back to the grated drains that often run spanwise across the back of a bay. A dedicated engine running probably couldn't accomodate that but at least you can take comfort in knowing that most major spills on bay WILL be directed away from the aircraft.

we need to introduce old procs
 

(quote from Flight)
General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained engine failure which caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing 767-200 at Los Angeles on Friday.

The aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the (left) No.1 engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power response from the engine during the flight.
(unquote)

First in a problem you should do a count on parts. We hat it too, sluggish power response and finally a blade was missing. Fortunatly the engine did not blow up on test.
Just as fun, once I asked the main difference between Pratts and GE's.

Answer: whether hear the loud bang when the Canadian cuffs or the Cowboy spreads the hot section over the runway.:ok:

Had this in flight, no problem securing the engine, after landing all parts (found)at atemperature you can touch them:}

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2000/A00_121_124.pdf

Sept 22 2000 USAir had a similar incident...same motors...same type high speed runup by mtc...except that the hpt stage 1 disk went up and over the aircraft into the river. AC was written off due to fire damage. N654US.

From this postulated what if, I would suspect similar damage and outcome if below V1 and the aircraft stops on the runway. However, the window of risk vs hours of operation, is very small considering all causes of uncontained rotor failures.