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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/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.

WHBM
PMSL, :)
you have got to be joking, we are flying the r s' off ours and have been for a long time, most utilised a/c in the fleet. And you can explain that to the wife who never sees me because of them being used so much.

I remember a BA survey were an old B747classic freshly painted was being compared with a two year old B747-400.
All the passengers wanted to fly the classic, as it looked much more reliable.


That might suggest the opposite to previous speakers, as maintenance will not waist time on painting, but instead maintaining freighter a/c.

Spuis

The front bulkhead of the pylon had several SB's over the years with additional inspections for cracking and fastener looseness. I think Pan Am had the dubious honour of dropping the first one following a landing at LHR in the '80s'

Just for info:

B747 engines were designed to break off in the event of a crash landing, the engines are suppose to flip over the wing (possibly doing a one and a half turn twisting pike). After the El Al incident it was decided that perhaps the engines were better staying on the wing and all B747s went through a mod programme. For this incident I'll speculate on the pylon cracking until it couldn't hold the engine any longer. I would not be suprised if the 'pins' were still on the A/C.

Good news though that there were no reported casualties.

You got the right idea but the wrong specification. Engine seizure is not a design parameter for sizing these pins. The pins, in the pylon, are sized against aircraft loads (gusts, flutter, etc.).

The engine mounts against the engine, are sized for the anticipated results of a (single failure condition) fan blade off, and the aircraft designer simply ensures that the blade-off load will not exceed the specified design margin already incorporated in the pin.

A little confusing, but the pin may still fail if other conditions are present.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't 747s have a bit of history with shall we say 'premature' separation of parts. For example, one BA Classic 747 on approach into somewhere in the states, the PNF selects Flap what-ever, and gets in response half the trailing edge of one of the wings missing!! :oh: Best bit was the flap section landed on some poor blokes brand new car. Bloody good thing he wasn't in it. Anybody else know of such cases?

Btw, I'm not bringing doom and gloom over the poor ol' birds. Theres probably 200 classic 74s, at least, airborne at this very moment, and in, what my doctor would argue, better shape than I'm in!!

From viewing the pix in the slideshow, looks like the engine caused significant damage to the leading edge when it departed the aircraft.
I think they're lucky this incident wasn't more serious.

3my

The CF6 has had it's share of premature departures too. Atlas has left one in a back yard in Guayaquil (Sp)! I believe but can't confirm, that LH landed and had one half hanging off in the late '70's. Other factors of Freighters VS Pax 74's is that because of the higher weights, the freighters usually cruise at lower altitudes, encountering more turbulent air. Some freighters are certified to land at 302K vs 285K. It all adds up to, more weight, more all around stress across the whole flight envelope. It seems to me too that the Freighter is usually more heavily utilised ( no pun intended!)

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!

Makes perfect sense.

atlast is correct-freighters routinely takeoff at max weights and land at max weights.

Is this different from pax flights, and if so why?

I can understand that pax flights may be heavily or lightly loaded due to commercial demand but would still think that many operate full (ideal economically for the carrier, ja?) and wouldn't this be likely to be in the neighborhood of MTOW? and so I think it fair to think that many pax flights routinely takeoff at max weights. Unless pax and/or their baggage are thrown overboard in flight, weight issues are not too different as far as I can tell. Difference between Take Off Weight and Landing Weight should mostly be Fuel Burn, whether payload is Freight or SLF.

Happy for correction, myself simple SLF.

Kansasw
Rough Wags : 400SLF @ 200lb with 100lbs bags each = 120,000lbs or 54,545 kg assuming no belly freight.

Freighter load just taken MXP to ORD: 92,000kg with 126,000kg of fuel.

Also bear in mind, less fuel required for the PAX bird as they're not as heavy.

On top of all that, we still managed a slightly reduced thrust takeoff just for the pleasure of seeing the end of the runway more clearly!(TIC)

Just asking - as I don't have first hand knowledge, but what is the maintenance like at Kalitta? I havn't heard of them having many incidents or accidents. I would assume it's on the better side of the fence.

Another thing is that we need to wait and see what caused this. The El-Al plane lost the engine as the fuse pins had massive corrosion. They were weakened to the point that they couldn't stay on. After this Boeing redesigned the pins, pylons, and maintenance program and that seemed to fix the problem. This could be anything from a bad repair, bad maintenance, design fault, turbulance, etc.... We simply need more info at this point.

All such incidents have been aircraft problems. Turbine seizure has never resulted in such an event

74tweaker

You must joking. I do believe Connie has cleaned up his act in recent years, only because he had to. I do remember about 10 years ago that the feds shut him down because of maintenance.
Just ask some of the guys that used to work for him.
I do know of two 727 crews that were fired because they wouldn't take an aircraft that had a bad igniter box. He wanted them to start an engine that had a good box then remove it from the running engine and put it on the engine with the bad box. Heard another story where he put his girlfriend in the right seat of a DC-8 for a scheduled cargo flight. The Capt of the flight didn't find out until after they got to CRZ that all she had was a PPL! I can go on and on about Connie.
Years ago, after Evergreen dropped an engine over ANC I held one of the fuse pins in my hand that was on that engine pylon. It did not fail at the fuse pin like it was designed to do. I think this played a big part in the pylon mods that were required of 74's after that.
Just a note; I believe when an engine departs the aircraft (because it at power) it usually goes up and over the top of the wing taking out the leading edges in that area.

classic

A-Floor, I know very little about 747s, but an FO I've flown with flew Connie Kallita Learjets for five years, and a guy who retired from Uncle Sam flew Kallita DC-8s just before he came here. It took all three crewmembers and a mechanic one night to convince Connie face-to-face that the elevator hydraulic pressure was inop; D. told me that the plane would never have rotated. If your Learjet engine flamed out at Connie, you descended and restarted it. If you declared an emergency-you were fired.

Of course the regulations are the same. Compliance and enforcement at some freight airlines, supporting the Captain's decisions, can be a totally different matter, and in the US this is not a secret among civilian pilots.

I also chatted a while at our layover hotel in Buffalo, New York with a gent who flew Tornados in either the German Marine or Luftwaffe. He then flew various smaller cargo jets and DC-6s on the East Coast (would not tell me the companys' names) before his present job. When a DC-6 engine caught fire, the crew never told the tower about it, even after tower asked about the excessive smoke/flames. They might have been terminated by their employer (?). Ask me if you want the phone numbers for the former Connie Learjet Captain (J) or the former DC-8 FO (D). I'll e-mail them to you.

Lets not forget Connie of old getting his license yanked for repossesing a DC-9 and soloing it home. Or the time at Hamilton where he was unhappy with the bill and went in the hanger and fired up the engines. A&P's diving off the wings cause he was Leavin...............:E

747CLASSIC
 

Is that why he started painting his 747 fleet real nice in recent years? :D ;)

I do know that when a 747 engine must leave the wing for whatever reason, the pylon is designed in such a way that it goes "nose first", with one of the front bolts failing first, giving the engine a forward moment of inertia with which in turn shears off on of the rear bolts, and the engine then falls away from the aircraft. Although this indeed went tragically wrong in the El-Al case, I do think on this Kalitta flight things happened like they were supposed to, judging from how little damage was actually done to the leading edge flaps (only the number 5 flap is slightly damaged looking at the pictures... all others are perfectly okay).

You could argue that on the Kalitta flight they were retracted when the engine departed the wing (as opposed to those on LY1862).

Ignition Override // 747FOCAL

Thanks for that :) Next time I see one of Mr. Kalitta's aircraft at AMS I can guarantee you your anecdotes are what I'm thinking of :ooh:

When the engine leaves the wing under power they fly up due to lift loads on the inlet (the cross section is somewhat of an airfoil) and snap to the right due to gyroscopic action. For engines on the port wing they end up missing the inboard wing, while on the starboard side, the #3 engine intersects the #4 engine and the wing LE between the #3 and 4. Both for the B747 and the B707

The aircraft designer who designs the inlet can affect the lift action but there's not much you can do about the gyro loads .

BTW, catastrophic engine failures typically stop the fan fast enough that very little lift occur (inlet spillage) and no gyro loading, so expect the engine to fall away.

One could expect some differences if the fuel is interrupted several seconds before the engine is totally released. Thus the time-line sequence of separation could play a part.

3 Engine Operation
 

I'm delighted that everyone was safe.

That said, I've been flying round for years on 3 engines, DC10, L1011 - no sweat!

Every landing is asymmetric!!

I'm not sure I like the idea of a design that's predicated on dumping a bit of the aircraft that's failed. Yes the engine IS dead weight but there's less collateral damage leaving it where the designers wanted it.

Shame they don't have that system for difficult pax!

As for the CF6 - what an engine, superb and virtually unburstable.

Prior to that I was confirmed RR but must admit the CF6 is much less temperamental in operation.

ballpoint: not exclusively limited to P&W motors. As you may recall that on May 25, 1979 at ORD, engine No.1 came unglued and rotated over the wing of a GE powered DC-10-10. In the mid 90s a Rolls Royce RB211 had separated from a TriStar after takeoff at MIA.

Engine separation has more to do with maintenance (corrosion/metal fatigue) of pylons and attach fittings, rather than engines. Pylons, attach fittings, bolts, thrust links and engine nacelles/cowlings are airframe parts.

Just for those interested, During climb the engine did seize after The Big Bang !!! it then departed the aircraft, as it should.