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.

Robin Eygelshoven (@r_eygelshoven) Tweeted:
Vliegtuig in Meerssen verliest onderdelen.... 😱 #meerssen #Boeing747 #failure @NUnl https://t.co/cX1k5zg86M


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....76065d5a3.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....88c224ef4.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....63830b6ba.jpeg


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a0480f5047.png
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9fae341ea1.png

Coincidentally, I happened to photograph the aircraft in question on its arrival at Maastricht, from JFK, a few hours earlier.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2b067f7a79.jpg

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.

From Airfleets

Serial number 24975 LN:838 Type 747-412BCF First flight date 05/02/1991


Engines 4 x PW PW4056

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

I was told by a ground engineer at the field it was uncontained, but no pics to back it up. **** happens, part of the job.

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.

Good luck to those with damage over any compensation, or even making contact with a "flag-of-convenience" operator.

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.

My thoughts exactly, and it isn't just the UK media, the German media looks to be similarly blinkered.

Widely reported in this European country. I understand freight, no pax to worry about, no in-flight videos.

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.

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).

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.

Looking at the latest picture on avherald:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d1a710cd88.jpg
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.

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.

Go tell the injured people on the ground that the failure was "contained". Just a matter of vocabulary

It's a technical term concerning the energy and direction of the fragments that leave the engine. It is of crucial importance for certification and also important to the integrity of the rest of the aircraft, and we should not misuse the terms just because there is a hazard to people on the ground.

A good way to put it is to call it a "catastrophic engine failure", which is both technically accurate and sufficiently alarmist to suit the press.

Not really a matter of vocabulary. An uncontained engine failure is when engine parts penetrate and exit via the engine casing. This looks like an LP turbine failure where the parts exit via the exhaust.

And these blades were not hollow. A different kettle of fish.

Turbine blades have been hollow for a very long time, much longer than fan blades. For different reasons (cooling), but still.

A few years ago it was General Electric CF6-50 engines that were having turbine failures (HP2 disc IIRC).
All engine makers have problems at times.

It's being reported on the Boeing 777 engine failure thread (though not relevant to that event) that the Japanese CAA has banned operations by aircraft powered by the PW4000-94 (B744, B762/3, MD11).

One wonders what the Japanese know that the FAA and EASA don't.

The Japanese have been very concerned for several years with engine parts possibly injuring folks on the ground. I'm guessing because of high density populations under flight paths.

Agreed. The only commonality is the engine manufacturer and its regulator (Pratt & Whitney / FAA). Obvious lack of confidence.

The trend for countries to ban overflight on safety grounds for aircraft not on their own register started with the 737Max. It was a big step from the past, where under ICAO rules there was automatic acceptance of aircraft registered in other countries. Importation was a different story, with validation required.

FAA really needs to get things back in order.

The PW4000/94" engine has been in service for over 30 years with over 150 million flight hours - it's a big, heavily used fleet. The odd turbine failure that spits blades out the back when you have an engine with such a history is generally not that big of deal. Every engine type has the occasional 'metal in the tailpipe' incident - it happens. Sometimes things break.
I haven't had access to the PW4000/94" reliability statistics for over four years, but when I retired it was considerably less than one IFSD/100,000 flight hours standard that's used for extended ETOPS.
Combined with Longtail being a small time freight operator, me thinks this is a pretty dramatic over reaction by the Japanese authorities.

Following an engine change, the Longtail aircraft in question departed Liege some 10 minutes ago. That would, I presume, confirm that there was no significant (if any) damage to the fuselage.

That was quick! It probably helps that there are lots of PW engines for 744s lying around from retired passenger aircraft...

procede, The spare engine was brought in by their other 747 'WS' on Monday. It then took 'WT's cargo to JFK.