Jump to content

Boeing 777 engine failure-no casualties


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, vince14 said:

Not to take anything away from them, but it is kinda their job to do that. Running checklists in an emergency isn't some sort of act of supreme level-headed calmness, it's what they're trained to do. That crew has probably flown exactly that kind of emergency - the loss of an engine - a hundred times in a simulator before it happened to them in real life.

Hey, thanks for clearing that up for me.  I guess I kinda lost my head in all the excitement and all.  Certainly wouldn’t want the plebes up front to think they actually did something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they did do something - they landed a jet with an engine out, which would have been an unusual day at the office for them. But you know what, some other crew will land a jet with an engine out today somewhere in the world, and yet again tomorrow. And the day after.

 

It's not like the crew didn't know what to do when it happened, they'll have practiced engine out scenarios countless times before in a simulator. It might have looked spectacular but this wasn't a 'wing and a prayer' incident like, say, United 232. They had an engine failure, they reacted as per their training, they landed the jet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vince14 said:

Yes, they did do something - they landed a jet with an engine out, which would have been an unusual day at the office for them. But you know what, some other crew will land a jet with an engine out today somewhere in the world, and yet again tomorrow. And the day after.

 

It's not like the crew didn't know what to do when it happened, they'll have practiced engine out scenarios countless times before in a simulator. It might have looked spectacular but this wasn't a 'wing and a prayer' incident like, say, United 232. They had an engine failure, they reacted as per their training, they landed the jet.

 

They certainly did do something, they behaved in the cool, measured, level-headed way that I'd want in a commercial airline pilot. They earned their pay (and training costs) on that flight!

 

Every time I hear of an engine out on a twin-engined 'plane (or drive up the M1 north of Leicester), I can't help thinking of Kegworth in 1989

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Every time I hear of an engine out on a twin-engined 'plane (or drive up the M1 north of Leicester), I can't help thinking of Kegworth in 1989

 

Richard

 

Where the pilots also shut down the wrong engine... cost nearly 50 lives.

 

 

 

for those interested in that sort of stuff, check out blancolirio channel on YouTube - he is excellent

 

https://youtu.be/Tkieg1ZFcPE

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, vince14 said:

 That crew has probably flown exactly that kind of emergency - the loss of an engine - a hundred times in a simulator before it happened to them in real life.

 

Every 6 months (here in the U.S. , don't know about other countries).

Yeah the news 'reporters' are downright laughable in their ignorance

of the subject and simple things like physics.

                                                                                  nGBNjRa.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nmayhew said:

 

Where the pilots also shut down the wrong engine... cost nearly 50 lives.

 

This does sort of support what Vince was saying. They were flying a new version of the 737 using experience of an earlier version. They hadn't been trained on the new variant and there were no simulators in the UK. They also didn't trust the vibration meter which was indicating the correct engine and drew an incorrect conclusion from the smoke entering the cabin

 

Had they been through proper type training on a simulator, Kegworth may have been forgotten - apart from the fuss around a disintegrating fan on the CFM-56. Which is all so much 'what-if' really

 

Since the road was remodelled, I think the Kegworth crash site is now the inside lane of the northbound motorway

 

Richard

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in commercial aircraft leasing for 30 plus years.  An uncontained engine failure is extremely rare.  The GE90 is a phenomenal engine flying millions of passengers all over the world for decades. The crew are doing there due diligence and did what was necessary to an uneventful landing.  This is what they are paid to due along with the cabin crew and they executed their duties to the fullest.  Well done.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Troy Molitor said:

I've been in commercial aircraft leasing for 30 plus years.  An uncontained engine failure is extremely rare.  The GE90 is a phenomenal engine flying millions of passengers all over the world for decades. The crew are doing there due diligence and did what was necessary to an uneventful landing.  This is what they are paid to due along with the cabin crew and they executed their duties to the fullest.  Well done.  

The engine in question is the Pratt PW4000 series - not GE. 

 

Interestingly, a Pratt-powered 747-400BCF shed a load of fan blades on climb out from a Dutch airport on the same day (or possibly just before) with debris hitting cars and injuring a young girl on the ground - there are now naturally quite legitimate questions about the integrity of these older PW engines in terms of metal fatigue.

 

Going back to the 'art' or journalism and the recent reports on the 777/747 incidents, notice how quick they are to state it was 'a 26-year old 777' or '30 year old 747...' So what? Do they not realise that the engine may be much younger than that? It's rare for an aircraft to keep the same engines all of it's operational life - I know the majority here are aviation geeks but some of the standard of reporting is absolutely woeful and all they are after is the sensationalist headline.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Tom.  True journalism  - “Just the facts, Jack” - is long dead.  Much easier to use retweeted tweets as a source.  For some reason aviation of all sorts seems to suffer the most.  Probably because it is not well understood by most and usually very visual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much in agreement about the very poor standards of journalism in the Daily Mail article. It was clearly written by someone with virtually no aviation knowledge, but with a ready access to Wikipedia. 

 

The fire was obviously very much under control, the engine had been shut-down (fan-blades turning slowly in the slipstream) and the whole situation seems to be stable, even if it will naturally cause the passengers some very serious stress-levels.

 

I'm very sceptical about "the spreading debris over as square mile", too. 

 

Chris,     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being from the Denver area and seeing some of this firsthand, it was quite spectacular. While the pilots are most definitely trained to handle a situation like this, and run the scenario time and time again, there's always that little bit of question as to whether or not someone will be able to handle it when it matters most. Training often comes with the mental reality that it is indeed that, training. A static environment, not wrought with danger. The trick is training so many times that when the real world situation happens, the training kicks in and takes over, and the brain treats it like another training scenario. But, you often won't know if someone has the salt to do it until it actually happens.

 

I've been in law enforcement for 12 years, and we operate on the same mental aptitude (logically speaking). We can train and train and train, but until you're put into a real life situation where the training matters, we have no idea how you will actually react under the real stress. Kudos to these pilots, they reacted well, stayed calm, and did an outstanding job doing their job. Now they know they can handle it. And so do all of the crew and passengers. And their supervisors at United. And all of us.

 

- Dennis S.

   Thornton, CO USA

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post comes from someone who spend an entire airline career training in flight simulators...

 

Simulators are an invaluable training device. However, when "flying" them there is no consequence to a screw up, unlike real life. In the back of your mind you know that if you make a mistake, a simple reset is in order and the exercise is run again. Your heart rate doesn't jump in a simulator like it does in a comparable real life scenario. Trust me, I know, having had engine failures in real life as well as the simulator.

 

Yes, this crew did a superb job having been trained to do so. However, (though I can't speak to the 777 sim specifically), they likely trained for an engine failure, not an engine failure with the resulting loss of the cowling assembly (which shouldn't happen). I am sure the aerodynamic forces (drag from loss of the cowling and vibration from the remaining engine components) on the aircraft were something for which they hadn't trained for.

 

At the end of the day, the crew did a great job and should be commended for their skill.

 

The problem with the press is that the public wants answers right now to aviation events. That is why the media interviews "experts" to get answers for a news hungry public. Any true professional would tell you to come back and interview after the report comes out and not jump to judgment. Sadly, that doesn't satisfy the publics lust for immediate answers. When the inevitable report comes out a year from now, no one will care as it won't be "newsworthy" anymore as some other event of the time will be in the limelight. 

 

Mark Proulx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew around with many former United pilots over the years.  A good friend of mine sent me this.

 

Interesting to read:  

Earlier today, the Company informed us that starting immediately United is voluntarily and temporarily removing 24 Boeing 777s powered by Pratt & Whitney 4000 series engines (PW4077 and PW4090) from our schedule. Of our 52 Pratt-powered 777-200 A and B models, 24 were actively flying and 28 were in pandemic-driven storage. Our 777-200Cs and 777-300s do not have PW4000 engines and are not affected, nor are any other fleets.

 

Half of the fleet is in pandemic driven storage for the Heavies.  Yikes.  Back in the day a B777-300 (GE powered) lease rate was 1M plus a month.  That's 33k a day or $1,388 an hour sitting or flying.  Now factor in crew, fuel, maintenance and various company employees, overflight permits, landing fees the list goes on and on.

 

Just something to ponder.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...