AA 763 engine failure on ground run
 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1055376/L/
Looks rather dramatic, thankfully nobody was hurt. There's not many pictures of engines broken (for comparison) but I was rather surprised at what appears to have been evidence of a fairly nasty fire. The turbine part of the engine casing appears severely damaged.

Some red faces at AA!
 

Happened yesterday, no1 engine was being tested and blew up!
http://photos.airliners.net/photos/p.../3/1055376.jpg

767-200ER. No tail skid.

No tail skid is one of the most obvious differences between the -200 and -300 models.

More pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/se...7594153722446/

Oops, corrected the title. What an interesting set of photographs from the firefighters.

Are these the remains of a turbine disc visible here, poking out of the casing?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/15...7594153722446/

He said re-arranging his anorak

Personally, the most striking aspect is what seems to be fairly serious damage to the fuel tanks resulting in a significant fuel leak. Similar scenario to the AF Concorde.

Not something you'd like to see over the middle of the Pond. Good thing this was a ground run and not an in flight occurence. Possibly, the effect of this happening at normal airspeeds would result in a different trajectory for the expelled engine component so not sure if the damage would have been identical.

Looking forward to some comments from people in the know.

I suppose that's what they call an uncontained failure... Glad I wasn't standing nearby. :ouch:

Which by the looks of things in this photo came from the left hand engine, sliced through the underside and embedded itself in the exhaust of the right engine. Scary stuff.

Isn't that the outboard side of No. 2? Did it fail too? Hard to see how a disc from No. 1 would have travelled that path...

Didn't pick that out, i.e. the damage on the opposite engine... if the initiating cause was common, i.e. one failure of one engine affecting the other, wouldn't that open a can of worms when it comes to maintaining the ETOPS approval for this airframe/engine combination?

Sorry, missed the post from Fernando_Covas, it does look as though a No. 1 disc travelled across the belly and nearly through No. 2.

And (if I'd been thinking) No. 2 would have shown quite a bit of other damage if that was one of its discs...

:eek:
Would be great to know what powersetting was applied!

(edit: wrote what Farnando wrote before..)

Rest assured I won't make such an error again! To be honest I could care less about the exact type of aircraft (both have common powerplants with identical geometry to each other), I just thought it was an interesting picture, hence I put it initially in the spotter forum as I'd guessed that if there was any real mileage in it someone in the know would have already blogged it here in R&N.

I'm guessing that a failure of this nature is extremely rare (although that wouldn't console the poor buggers that experienced it), although I remember a thread some time ago about a 777 suffering an engine failure (again on the ground) and some expelled parts striking the opposite engine, though with only superficial damage caused.

The energy involved in sending a part out of one engine, through the fuselage, and almost straight through part of the other engine is mind boggling, but really illustrates some incredible engineering considering how long these things run for without any problems at all.

Hhmmmm!..........maybe that n2 vibration indication was genuine after all:eek: :suspect::E
CF6-80a for the -200 and CF6-80c2b6 for the -300
I know I'm going....i'll get me coat!

It's not unheard of for a HP turbine disc, when loosed, to travel over 1 km. Slicing through aluminum belly skin is no obstacle at all.

Despite best efforts, it can still happen.


"Actually, Mr. Parkins," this visitor said brightly, after seeing the blue flame of an engine's exhaust, "you people are simply trying to contain and control fire, aren't you?"

"Yes," said Parkins, who had been up to his ears in trouble all week, "but that's simply all the devil has to do in h---, too, as I understand it."

(Mr. Horace Mansfield Horner, President, United Aircraft Corporation, in a 1952 briefing on Jet Engine Production before the Industrial College of the Armed Forces)

Air NZ had a similar self destruction of a early manufactured turbine disk in Brisbane, Australia. This occured in flight!
Boeing had for several years quietly did engine strut stiffening without really explaning why.
The reason why became obvious from then on.
These photos show that this plyon has been strengthened, otherwise the enine would be sitting on the ground.

Just a couple of coments to get this back on the proper track.

The cross aircraft damage is unique to a rebound off the runway, as is the fuel tank damage and ground pool fire.

Some account will need to be taken of this for ETOPs (single engine uncontained failure), but it would probably have negligible impact on ETOPS

I realise that after much of my lifetime around aircraft, I have no idea what provision is made for a major fuel leak.

It seems here that an attempt has been made to catch some spill, but imagine several tons dumped round a hot and damaged aircraft.

One hopes that those big white tanks in the background are not fuel tanks (they do not seem to have any spill control areas around them). But if they are not fuel tanks, then what are they?