Author Topic: More Boeing Woes  (Read 969 times)

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
More Boeing Woes
« on: February 21, 2021, 02:15:03 AM »
More airline fun with everybody's most trusted plane brand!

A 777 (N772UA) flying out of Denver burst an engine, showering a nearby city with parts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56141673






Even better, here's a video of the burning remains of the engine from on-board:
https://twitter.com/michaelagiulia/status/1363241125495136267

https://www.ifn.news/posts/united-airlines-flight-ua328-suffers-serious-engine-failure/
Quote
A United Airlines Boeing 777 has suffered a serious engine failure shortly after departure from Denver. The aircraft was heading to Honolulu on flight UA328.

Involved was N772UA, a 26 year-old Boeing 777-200. It was forced to return for an immediate emergency landing, which the pilots carried out safely with no further incident. According to the airline, there were 231 passengers and ten crew members on board.

There are no reported injuries, initial reports say. However, metal pieces of the aircraft’s engine casing were seen falling to the ground and landing in a neighborhood in Broomfield, a city near Denver, Colorado.

..

Two highly similar incidents also occurred with United Airlines in 2016 and 2018. Both cases involved a serious failure of a Pratt & Whitney PW4077 engine on Boeing 777-200 aircraft.

So, not entirely Boeing's fault, bunch of Pratts.

Ambient Sheep

  • I owe lots of people PMs, sorry. Hopefully soon...
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2021, 03:23:28 AM »
Thanks for flagging this up!  Big oops.

Even better, here's a video of the burning remains of the engine from on-board:
https://twitter.com/michaelagiulia/status/1363241125495136267

That didn't last long. :-(  Gone already.


Obligatory PPRuNe linkage: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncontained-engine-failure.html

Aha!  The second post has a YouTube link:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XnSjAdvKp8k

and an ATC recording (which I haven't listened to yet):
https://kdvr.com/news/local/listen-mayday-call-from-crew-of-united-flight-328/
(and indeed can't listen to as it's behind one of those anti-EU paywalls, leaving it in for non-EU/UK peeps and those with VPNs).


Bloody hell though, that video is an amazing watch.  Although as one guy said:

Quote
This is an exceptionally rare and spectacular failure but it’s not as potentially catastrophic as it looks.

If you’re an ER doctor this is a shallow wound with lots of blood if you will.

No damage to the wing or fuel tanks, no damage to the fuselage, no explosive decompression, no damaged flight controls.

Just really spectacular

Apparently the PPRuNe thread title was incorrect.  It *was* contained, within the official definition.  This, from the ever-informative tdracer (a former Boeing engine integration guy, now retired):

Quote
That's not the definition of an uncontained failure.

The definition of an uncontained failure is high energy debris exiting tangential to the engine (within a few degrees).

Bits coming out the front or back, or the inlet/nacelle falling off, is not considered an uncontained failure. That being said, large bits of the inlet and nacelle coming off is a big no-no since it can do damage to the tail surfaces or to people/structures on the ground.


Finally, also today it seems that *another* Pratt & Whitney engine bit the dust, and this time it WAS uncontained, allegedly.  Which is never supposed to happen, basically:

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638787-uncointained-engine-failure-b747-4f-longtail-t-o-maastricht-netherlands.html

Thankfully it was a freight job, although one little boy apparently burnt his hand picking up a fallen engine fragment. :-(

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2021, 04:11:26 AM »
So, not entirely Boeing's fault, bunch of Pratts.

Aye, it's mostly Donnie Darko's fault but to be fair, he was saving the universe from collapsing in on itself.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2021, 04:24:10 AM »
This, from the ever-informative tdracer (a former Boeing engine integration guy, now retired):

Think the NTSB might want to investigate whether Boeing engineers know the difference between tangential and orthogonal.

Have they been pointing the engines in the wrong direction for all these years? Amazing, if true.

Ambient Sheep

  • I owe lots of people PMs, sorry. Hopefully soon...
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2021, 06:38:31 AM »
I must admit, that word made me twitch too.  I'd've used "perpendicular" myself.  But I'm guessing he means stuff flying off tangentially to the spinning fan discs, rather than forwards or backwards as they're supposed to do.  (Another post of his on that thread states that the brown wrapping seen on the video is the stuff that's supposed to stop that.)

Despite that, he has a long history on that forum of generally well-written informative stuff... and has been known to criticise Boeing on occasion (chiefly re. 777 & 787).

I don't know his exact ex-role (and presumably he had a few in his time, he seems to have been a lifer) but engines (as they relate to Boeings) seem to be his speciality from his postings over the years.  Stuff like this post in that thread.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2021, 06:51:57 AM by Ambient Sheep »

Ambient Sheep

  • I owe lots of people PMs, sorry. Hopefully soon...
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2021, 06:55:08 AM »
Also (and I'm only putting this in a different post to avoid the Edit bug - it was in the original but with the wrong link) this post states that at one point he was "on the Boeing Propulsion Safety Committee".

Sorry if I'm coming across a bit weird about this.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2021, 09:06:10 AM »
Imagine being the person filming that engine inferno, and having the balls, the sheer effrontery to simulate introducing a marshmallow on a toasting fork into the flame, followed a few seconds later by his/her stupid, grinning face gobblin' it down?

No fear at all, just totally focused on the Likes.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2021, 09:20:10 AM »
It would actually be a good way of distracting yourself from the terror: how can I make an amusing video of me toasting a marshmallow (or, as shown, a tomato), in the engine fire?




Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2021, 09:28:45 AM »
I must admit, that word made me twitch too.  I'd've used "perpendicular" myself.  But I'm guessing he means stuff flying off tangentially to the spinning fan discs, rather than forwards or backwards as they're supposed to do.  (Another post of his on that thread states that the brown wrapping seen on the video is the stuff that's supposed to stop that.)

Despite that, he has a long history on that forum of generally well-written informative stuff... and has been known to criticise Boeing on occasion (chiefly re. 777 & 787).

I don't know his exact ex-role (and presumably he had a few in his time, he seems to have been a lifer) but engines (as they relate to Boeings) seem to be his speciality from his postings over the years.  Stuff like this post in that thread.

I was just having a little joke. I don’t know anything about engineering, I’m sure he’s very good.

Zetetic

  • I wasn't supposed to be around this long, so…
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2021, 10:16:50 AM »
Looks fine, they should run all engines like that.

(Experience: currently working as VP of Marketing at P+W.)

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2021, 10:17:52 AM »
As an ex Rolls-Royce engineer can I just point out that this actually a wonderful example of flight safety procedures working as designed. Look at the beautiful Kevlar doing it’s stuff and no damage to primary or secondary structures, and looks like the fire bottles have done their job.

Lovely work Pratt chaps!

Obviously all the other shit that fell off and the fact a compressor blade or something went ping is very bad.

BlodwynPig

  • The Last Living Member of COVID-20
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2021, 10:26:29 AM »
Not helping that fear of flying!

Saw a military aircraft struggling to land at Newcastle yesterday in high winds - but I suspect it may have just been doing practice loops as I wouldn't imagine they would have difficulty 4 times in a row. Pretty unnerving seeing this massive bulk of a thing directly overhead and low and then roar off as the wind battered me on the ground.

Tony Tony Tony

  • Bang... and the dirt is gone
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2021, 11:16:22 AM »


Reckon it could have been this cuddly little fella trying to warm up at 20 000 feet.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2021, 12:09:12 PM »
His (the monster's) hair is ... perfect.

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2021, 12:58:12 PM »

Monkeyman on wing is most terrifying aviation event.

Colorado is ludicrously brown.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2021, 06:17:23 PM »





"Now Mr NTSB man possession being 9/10 of the law it's in my garden and I'm keeping it"

Johnny Yesno

  • Member
  • **
  • Perfume of a critic's burning flesh
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2021, 06:32:46 PM »
That didn't last long. :-(  Gone already.

It's still there.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2021, 08:10:13 PM »
Thread title would be more amusing as More Boning Woes

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2021, 08:14:23 PM »
Thread title would be more amusing as More Boning Woes

Going to need some Bonelube


buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2021, 11:22:59 AM »
And now all PW4000-engined 777s have been grounded for emergency inspections.
Also, the damage to the wing root fairing may indicate that it was not totally contained after all.

There's speculation that damage may have been caused by the missing blade, which damaged the one next to it as it departed out the front of the nacelle (due to the high-rpm, low forward airspeed condition of the climbout), and then hit the fuselage.

There was another PW4000-family failure on a  747 Freighter over Maastricht yesterday too.
Some injuries on the ground too, including a child who burnt it's hand trying to pick one of the blade fragments up.

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2021, 12:18:22 PM »
And now all PW4000-engined 777s have been grounded for emergency inspections.
Also, the damage to the wing root fairing may indicate that it was not totally contained after all.


Ouch, that's a big no-no for engine design.

Wonder if it's just the engines getting to the limit of their lifespan. Both this 777 and that Maastricht 747 are over a quarter of a century old (the 747 was 30) which seems to be close to the upper limit to typical airliner ages.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2021, 12:22:02 PM »
This is about the only time I could tolerate a load of Americans applauding a plane landing.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2021, 01:02:36 PM »
Ouch, that's a big no-no for engine design.

Wonder if it's just the engines getting to the limit of their lifespan. Both this 777 and that Maastricht 747 are over a quarter of a century old (the 747 was 30) which seems to be close to the upper limit to typical airliner ages.

Difficult to tell from a 2D picture but that might be within the cone of rotor burst so 'should' have been designed correctly, i.e dry area, no systems

nah it's fine

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2021, 01:18:00 PM »
Ouch, that's a big no-no for engine design.

Wonder if it's just the engines getting to the limit of their lifespan. Both this 777 and that Maastricht 747 are over a quarter of a century old (the 747 was 30) which seems to be close to the upper limit to typical airliner ages.
The engines don't stay with the airframe through their lives though. They get swapped out for servicing and rebuilds (they are usually on a separate lease contract with trhe manufacturer), so the engines may be quite a bit younger. Also, during a major engine service, lifed components like the LP fan blades will get ND tested and swapped out for new parts if required.

Difficult to tell from a 2D picture but that might be within the cone of rotor burst so 'should' have been designed correctly, i.e dry area, no systems

nah it's fine
The #2 aircon pack and the fuel tank drip drains are covered by that fairing

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2021, 01:29:34 PM »
The wing damage could be a combination of metal fatigue and the seismic forces from passengers, with a good view of the engine, collectively shitting themselves, with a ferocity and percussive force way beyond anything the designers ever anticipated.

Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2021, 01:40:08 PM »
"Now Mr NTSB man possession being 9/10 of the law it's in my garden and I'm keeping it"
keep your voice down sir or everyone will want one

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2021, 01:57:57 PM »
And now all PW4000-engined 777s have been grounded for emergency inspections.

According to the BBC, it's specifically the PW4000-112 variant that has been grounded. That's only used by United Airlines and two Japanese airlines, and has unique hollow fan blades. I think that might explain the rapidity of the suspension* - in a more widely used engine the first assumption would be a maintenance failure rather than a design failure, but since this has unusual fan blades a design failure seems more likely.


(* that, and it's probably not going to cost airlines much at the moment)

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: More Boeing Woes
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2021, 02:37:14 PM »
According to the BBC, it's specifically the PW4000-112 variant that has been grounded. That's only used by United Airlines and two Japanese airlines, and has unique hollow fan blades.
The PW4000-112 is the only variant of the PW4000 family used on the original 777-200 and -300 'Classics' (the later 777 variants solely use the GE90 powerplant or it's later development, the GE9X). The other alternative powerplants for the'Classic' 777 were the RR Trent 800 (which also has hollow fan blades, but had it's own issues with ice in the fuel blocking the fuel-oil heat exchangers, leading to the BA38 crash at Heathrow in 2008) and the original GE90, which is why it's not affecting all 777s. The PW4000 was an older design, and the -112 variant was the end of it's development cycle.

United, Asiana, ANA, JAL and Korean were the customers who bought PW4000-powered Classics, and they are the ones affected by the grounding order. The Trent 800 had most of the market for the 777 Classic.

Tags: