Wow! Amazing escape for the people on this flight!!!

[buffnut453]

Saw in the news about how the engine of a United Airlines Boeing 777 exploded shortly after take-off from Denver. Then I saw this video taken from onboard the aircraft. Pretty amazing that (a) the explosion didn't send any debris into the fuselage, and (b) that the engine didn't entirely fall off the pylon.

I bet the crew and passengers were all thankful when they landed safely back on terra firma!!!!

 

[Crimea_River]

And there was this one 5 years ago but haven't heard the cause. And also this one 2 years ago. Hmmmm.....

 

[buffnut453]

At least we know the 777 flies well on just one engine!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

And there was this one 5 years ago but haven't heard the cause. And also this one 2 years ago. Hmmmm.....

The one in 2018 was from the same assembly batch of Boeings, had an uncontained failure with the starboard engine, occurred in February AND was also headed to Hawaii.

So it's pretty obvious that going to Hawaii is the cause.

 

[buffnut453]

The one in 2018 was from the same assembly batch of Boeings, had an uncontained failure with the starboard engine, occurred in February AND was also headed to Hawaii.

So it's pretty obvious that going to Hawaii is the cause.

But only in February!

 

[GrauGeist]

But only in February!

Right?
Pelé wants her peace and quiet!

 

[swampyankee]

Since none of the news mentioned the engine's make, I'm betting GE.

 

[Airframes]

There was also a photo on BBC News, showing the complete cowl ring in the garden of a Denver suburban house, just clear of the house wall - another lucky escape on the ground !

 

[Capt. Vick]

Crushed the poor guys pickup truck.

 

[GrauGeist]

Since none of the news mentioned the engine's make, I'm betting GE.

Pratt & Whitney PW4000

 

[Capt. Vick]

Here is a question I have always had: when is it more advisable to land a stricken aircraft immediately, anywhere, versus try and make it back to the airport?

With 20/20 hindsight it would have been better for the ValueJet with the loaded oxygen bottles to bring it down immediately as soon as they received a fire warning in the cargo hold. Or the Swiss Air(?) that had a cockpit fire and went down off of Nova Scotia. Obviously they had no pre knowledge of the fact that no one would survive, and thus to choose another option. They were doing what they were trained to do.

However, looking at this particular incident, you can see what appears to be fire in a section of the exposed engine, even after I assumed the cut the power(?). Was it a gamble to try and make it back to an airport instead of trying to bring it down "safely" anywhere, even barring the knowledge that the airport would have all the safety equipment on site? I mean could the pilots know that it was not an immediate explosive hazard?

Thoughts?

 

[GrauGeist]

Denver center is surrounded by the Rockie Mountains and a "flat spot" suitable for an emergency landing is in short supply.
The 777 does have engine fire detection/suppression systems on board, so as long as the Port engine was providing full function and the Starboard engine's fire was contained, they had enough "wiggle room" to return to DEN, which has adequate facilities both for landing and emergency equipment.

There are several airports in the area, but either not large enough to handle a heavy or lack the emergency infrastructure. Keep in mind that without the Starboard engine, the 777 cannot use reverse thrust to shorten it's landing rollout.

To get a good idea of the fire suppression system of the PW4000, have a look here:
Boeing 777 Aircraft Fire Detection and Extinguishing System

 

[yosimitesam]

Here is a question I have always had: when is it more advisable to land a stricken aircraft immediately, anywhere, versus try and make it back to the airport?

With 20/20 hindsight it would have been better for the ValueJet with the loaded oxygen bottles to bring it down immediately as soon as they received a fire warning in the cargo hold. Or the Swiss Air(?) that had a cockpit fire and went down off of Nova Scotia. Obviously they had no pre knowledge of the fact that no one would survive, and thus to choose another option. They were doing what they were trained to do.

However, looking at this particular incident, you can see what appears to be fire in a section of the exposed engine, even after I assumed the cut the power(?). Was it a gamble to try and make it back to an airport instead of trying to bring it down "safely" anywhere, even barring the knowledge that the airport would have all the safety equipment on site? I mean could the pilots know that it was not an immediate explosive hazard?

Thoughts?

I bet the fires were hydraulic fluid and lubricating oils burning off. Higher flash point for these, perhaps, reduced the chance of explosion(?) The fuel to the engine would have been cut immediately on any trouble. But would the pilot be thinking this way? Probably just thinking "we've got to get this thing on the ground." Your question is valid, though. Personally, I would need new underwear, after landing.

 

[cvairwerks]

1. Fly the airplane.
2. Work the Boldface emergency checklist
3. Worry about landing when you reach that item in the checklist

One thing most people don't understand, is that lots of bigger aircraft have maximum landing weights. If you have to put it down and are way too far above that weight, about the only way to not destroy the aircraft is to land at Edwards or Groom lake, where you have runway capabilities in excess of 3 miles. You will still damage the aircraft, but it should be completely survivable.

BTW...he would have had to dump probably 100 tons of fuel to get below max landing weight.....

 

[yosimitesam]

1. Fly the airplane.
2. Work the Boldface emergency checklist
3. Worry about landing when you reach that item in the checklist

One thing most people don't understand, is that lots of bigger aircraft have maximum landing weights. If you have to put it down and are way too far above that weight, about the only way to not destroy the aircraft is to land at Edwards or Groom lake, where you have runway capabilities in excess of 3 miles. You will still damage the aircraft, but it should be completely survivable.

BTW...he would have had to dump probably 100 tons of fuel to get below max landing weight.....

I'm retired from Fedex (software engineer) and back in the 1990's one of our planes had some kind of 'emergency' just after takeoff and landed 'heavy.' Did over 5 million dollars worth of damage to the plane even though the landing was otherwise 'normal.' It gave all of us working in 'the land of the cubicles' something to chatter about for a while.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This happened about 15 miles north of me. Photo courtesy Roger.

 

[Crimea_River]

So, does anybody know what happened in 2015 and 18?

 

[Gnomey]

Yikes, scary uncontained failure. Lucky no debris into the fuselage or injures on the ground because of the falling parts.

 

[pbehn]

This happened about 15 miles north of me. Photo courtesy Roger.

View attachment 613509

I see what the woman means now, that cone is a real mess, good to have an aircraft behind to give a sense of scale.

 

[buffnut453]

Looks like some damage at the undersurface wing root. Really, REALLY lucky that none of the debris entered the cabin.