23 ms·
United B772 at Denver on Feb 20th 2021, engine inlet separates from engine
- saagarjha 6y agoOne of the best parts of everyone carrying a camera in their pocket is you can get high-resolution images of incidents like these as a matter of course.
- gus_massa 6y agoRelevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1235/ https://xkcd.com/1235/
- sumedh 6y agoand yet no good video of a UFO.
- nexuist 6y agoOf course, you can explain your way out of that one too: The aliens found out we got smartphones, so they decided to stop making appearances now that they know they can be recorded.
- m00dy 6y agoHow's that possible it managed to fly with only one engine ?
- minxomat 6y agoThat is not a problem.
- xnx 6y agoAmazingly, I believe planes are designed/certified to do everything (e.g. take off fully loaded) with only a single working engine.
- pintxo 6y agoAnd if they loose the remaining one, all goes south: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1a2lSk_UI&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1a2lSk_UI&feature=emb_logo
- shiny 6y agoNot if you have Sully in the cockpit [1]. They can still glide. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger
- saagarjha 6y agoNot very well, though.
- ceejayoz 6y agoWell enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider > In 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) the aircraft lost 5,000 feet (1,500 m), giving a glide ratio of approximately 12:1 (dedicated glider planes reach ratios of 50:1 to 70:1). > Air Canada Flight 143 came to a final stop on the ground 17 minutes after running out of fuel.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoNo, planes glide just fine. That plane simply did not have enough altitude, or lift considering the bank angle to recover
- pintxo 6y agoTheir problem really was a lack of situational awareness / crew resource management. As they did shut down their perfectly well working engine instead of the broken one. Obviously that’s not improving your situation in any way.
- londons_explore 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- S_A_P 6y agoPlanes must be able to do this to be certified.
- ceejayoz 6y agoWell, assuming they have two+. A C-172 isn’t gonna fly too far with an engine out.
- tialaramex 6y agoBut, the pilot should be assuming that its single engine will fail, and prepared for that eventuality when it's most likely, which is during take off. Every flight the person sat at the controls ought to already know, before they're accelerating down the runway, what they're going to do when (not if, if you keep flying these little prop planes you've got to assume it'll happen eventually) the engine quits. What's beyond that airfield fence? A carpark? A pond? A school? The "impossible turn" (landing where you took off) might legitimately be a valid strategy for your failure in some circumstances if you've thought it through, but if you're doing it because you had no plan you're very likely to find out why they call it that.
- JCM9 6y agoIt’s designed to fly with only one engine. Not with great performance, but it will stay in the air. Routine procedure for twin engine aircraft.
- xvf22 6y agoNot only fly but climb. Commercial aircraft are required to fly safely should one of the two engines fail at any point of the flight, including takeoff at speeds beyond v1.
- snuxoll 6y agoFor the uninformed: V1: Speed at which the take off attempt should no longer be aborted Vr: Speed at which the plane should be pitched up (rotated) V2: Speed at which the plane can safely climb with one engine If an engine fails after V1 the runway is supposed to have sufficient length that you can hit Vr, rotate, and be 35 feet off the ground and traveling at V2 before you run out of tarmac even with a single engine.
- xvf22 6y agoFair enough and my memory may be fuzzy but I see quite a few references to V1 as being the minimum single engine takeoff speed. https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/493.pdf https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/493.pdf (page 2)
- snuxoll 6y agoIt's kind of poorly worded. Hitting V1 means you are committed to taking off, single engine failure or not - but you HAVE to reach V2 to safely climb on one engine. This should happen within moments of hitting Vr, but being single-engine after V1 means you went from hitting Vr halfway down the runway to potentially doing so at the ass-end of your minimum runway length. This means you have basically no room for any pilot error or other failures, and why engine failure on take-off is routinely rehearsed.
- mhh__ 6y agoLesson's learned in the aviation industry are worth their weight in blood, so the engineers have learnt the hard way to plan for every reasonable eventuality.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y agoWhy do you think it has two engines in the first place?
- Sn0wCoder 6y agoCome on, we all know so they can go faster.
- chrisseaton 6y agoThey could go faster with a single larger engine. Why do you think they went with two engines instead of a single larger engine? Redundancy.
- ghaff 6y agoNot clear to me that you'd design a commercial turbofan aircraft with one engine if you eliminated reliability requirements. You need to feed air to the engine and, to the degree you have wings, might as well have 2 engines.
- chrisseaton 6y agoThe idea that the engines need to sit on the wings like they do is something seems important, because it's so often done, but is actually not necessary. You can put a single engine in the tail, or on top of the cabin, or on the top of the cockpit, or underneath. They go on the wings because when you need two (for redundancy) it's a good place to put them for balance, and because it makes them nicely accessible for maintenance.
- ghaff 6y agoOf course military aircraft have different requirements (and many have just one engine in the tail). Certainly I'm not enough of an aero/astro engineer to know if, positing a perfectly reliable engine, you'd mount just one somewhere on the fuselage.
- 6y ago
- btgeekboy 6y agoThe other engine provides enough thrust to keep the plane airborne. The pilots (and likely other onboard systems) compensate for the asymmetric thrust with the rudder. As scary as it looks, this is one type of event that pilots routinely train for, both to get their initial multi-engine certification, and on their airlines’ simulators.
- londons_explore 6y agoThey happen pretty frequently... Just normally they don't look as visually spectacular as this.
- gshubert17 6y ago> The other engine provides enough thrust to keep the plane airborne. We could hear the remaining (loud) engine as the plane flew over. Our house is less than 2 miles from where the parts landed and right under its flight path. The boom just before that sounded like a sonic boom and shook our house perceptibly. There's been some property damage (a smashed truck top and a big hole in a roof) but no reports of injuries to this time (18:45 Mountain time).
- philjohn 6y agoRead up about ETOPS, which is what allows twin engined aircraft to fly long stretches over water.
- danaliv 6y agoTo a first approximation, if it takes X thrust to stay aloft, the engines produce a combined total of more than 2X, and there is a speed above which the rudder produces enough aerodynamic force to maintain directional control. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, look up multiengine airplane type certification requirements.
- JCM9 6y agoThe press will make a big deal out of this because of the spectacle of parts falling on people’s lawns... but other than that this looks like a fairly routine engine out situation. Nice job by the crew.
- choeger 6y agoAnd by "routine" you mean "standard when you lose an engine" not, "we lose an engine every other Friday", right? Because starting in a plane is kind of scary enough, all things considered.
- pedrocr 6y agoUncontained engine failures are a big deal. Exactly because they're a risk to the plane, as debris can cause other failures, and a risk to people on the ground. Engines are specifically tested to see if they can contain these failures. This doesn't seem routine at all.
- JCM9 6y agoYes, hence why I said the press will focus on this because of parts raining down. An airliner having an engine issue and returning single engine though is a routine thing... usually without missing parts.
- pedrocr 6y agoUncontained engine failures are cause to ground whole fleets of planes, even if the resulting emergency ended up mild. You're downplaying it way too much.
- leesalminen 6y agoAlso a similar event has happened before on a United Boeing 777-200 en route to Hawaii from Denver in 2016. http://avherald.com/h?article=4999bec5 http://avherald.com/h?article=4999bec5 Also another similar event on a United Boeing 777-200 en route to Hawaii in 2018. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7 http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7
- larkinrichards 6y agoI really appreciate focused news sites like avherald. Just the facts, a collection of photos and videos, straightforward. The video of the landing & the passengers cheering—- that huge sigh of relief. Brings a smile to my face.
- IgorPartola 6y agoWhat, you don’t like the anchor people on TV asking each other how they feel about every piece of news and making horrible puns at every opportunity? Or having expected announcements be reported as BREAKING NEWS?
- secfirstmd 6y agoAs a European who tuned in to US News for the US election I thought that was crazy. I'd watch a few of the right media orgs to see what they were saying and then stay on CNN/MSNBC etc for most of it. It's mad how so much of it every hour was essentially people just regurgitating stuff to fill the time. I mean OK what's happening is important but if you can't fill the airtime why not shift to other news (as in everything else happening in the world - HK democracy leaders were arrested during that time and I don't remember any proper mention through days upon days). Also the fake breaking news thing was stupid. The amount of times I'd turn up Wolf Blitzer or something because I would hear breaking news announcements in the background and thinking like you'd get at the BBC, Channel 4, RTE, France 24 Al Jazeera English, etc that something important was happening. Only to find breaking news was basically just random scheduled things or just regurgitation of what happens. Here Sky News is bad for playing things up but nowhere near as bad as any of them. News on the right in the US is awful but the Left isn't much better unfortunately. What do people watch that's in the Centre and actual news rather than hyperbole? PBS?
- sneak 6y agoI tried to do that, but even MSNBC these days seems to have fallen to hyperpartisan agitprop. I check nyt and cnn (both with a large grain of salt) periodically (~1x per week, for 5-10 minutes?) but unfortunately neither of those are quite as reliable as one would hope.
- alkonaut 6y agoLucky it didn’t happen half way. Could have been several hours on one engine and the other one shaking and on fire.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xxpor 6y agoLuckily flight plans are always required to be within a certain number of minutes of a place to land, and are certified to operate on one engine for that period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
- mrfusion 6y agoHow do you account for oceans?
- alistairSH 6y agoBy staying as close to land as required to ensure safety. until fairly recently, flights to Hawaii were largely served by 3- or 4-engine jets. It's only in the last several decades that ETOPS regulations have shifted enough to allow regular twin-engine service to Honolulu. See the 3rd response... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119921 https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=119921
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- beervirus 6y agoIt’s amazing that an aircraft can still fly pretty much normally and land safely after such a failure. Imagine if software were built with such resiliency.
- pintxo 6y agoIt exists, in the on-board systems of these planes.
- infodocket 6y agoYou can hear the air/ground communications for this flight here via LiveATC.net. The pilots declare an emergency and then a mayday call beginning at 1:15 of the audio. https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16129.0;attach=10823 https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1...
- hnburnsy 6y agoEMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition. DISTRESS (MAYDAY)- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance. URGENCY (PAN-PAN)- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
- willyt 6y ago“Declaring an emergency” is US specific. The rest of the world doesn’t recognise this phrase you have to use either “Mayday” for immediate danger to life or “Pan Pan” for less severe problems. As I understand it, “Declaring an emergency” is the equivalent of a Mayday and the US is very slowly switching away from this non standard phraseology.
- tjohns 6y ago"Declaring an emergency" isn't even correct in the US. The FAR/AIM only lists "mayday" and "pan pan". (Yes, it's oddly common here in the US for some reason. I think some pilots are afraid to say the "m" word.) That said, controllers are human. As long as you get the message across somehow they'll do everything they can to help, even with non-standard phraseology. Of course, the risk of non-standard phraseology is that you might be misunderstood - especially in countries where English isn't the primary language. It's still good to stick to standard ICAO phraseology whenever possible.
- willyt 6y agoFor sure, I think in an English speaking country you would probably get your point across. They would most likely come back with asking for confirmation that you are declaring 'mayday', but you would probably cause varying degrees of confusion in many other countries. I suppose the aim is to make it absolutely clear as quickly as possible that you want ATC to press the big red button labeled 'crash' which sets off the alarms in the airport fire station and causes other controllers to start diverting flights away and telling planes on approach to go around. These two podcast episodes about the last major crash at Heathrow are pretty interesting if you want to know what happens in ATC during something like this. The fire appliances were already en route before the plane hit the ground. http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-1/ http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-... http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-2/ http://airlinepilotguy.com/adam-spink-and-speedbird-38-part-...
- just_steve_h 6y agoI worked at a Large Internet Infrastructure Company for a long time, and saw software development practices that made my hair curl. All I could think was, "Gee, I'm glad we're not working on aviation software!" Seriously, though: software "engineering" could actually earn the name, if we had rigorous professional standards, regulatory oversight, and product liability.
- Dirlewanger 6y agoOne thing that sets software apart from other engineering disciplines is that they are grounded in physics (bits running on a semiconductor doesn't matter for this discussion) and have been around (in some form) for thousands of years. How do we know if a design is sound? We can check it by doing the math. How do we know if a program is sound (what does that even mean? There's our first problem)? Well, we rely on a large compendium of heuristics that are based on nothing but experiences compiled over the past ~60 years. Also, that compendium is constantly being added to. Also, virtually everyone disagrees on what should/shouldn't be in this compendium.
- just_steve_h 6y agoI'm wading into waters that are way over my head here, but my understanding is that it is possible for software to be provably correct, in the mathematical sense of "proof." I'm well aware of the admixture of folklore, experience, and caffeine-fueled inspiration that constitutes much of the software that runs our world.
- ghaff 6y agoThere's work going on in formal verification but it has many limitations. I'd also point out that in MechE/CivE fields, you're still dependent on materials (and maintenance) working as advertised. It's also often the case that operating conditions just end up being different from what was designed for or certain failure modes weren't considered. See, e.g. the Citibank Building in NYC http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_t...
- cracker_jacks 6y agoWake up, Donnie.
- mat_0 6y ago=:π (Ascii is hard)
- just_steve_h 6y agoSimon (the founder & proprietor of The Aviation Herald) is an incredible force for good in the world. His work on that site, for well over a decade now, is legendary.
- hu3 6y agoFun fact: the response header [1] of that website suggests it is powered by Apache and Perl. Which is amazing in itself. And it's still responsive despite being #1 on HN. [1] Apache/2.2.17 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.17 OpenSSL/1.0.2r mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.10.0
- tantalor 6y agoWhy is that suprising? Serving static content is easy
- rossdavidh 6y ago...and yet, very rarely done. That the correct technology for a news site (static content) was done, is the surprising part.
- dirkt 6y agoIt would also be the correct technology for most sites - you don't need fancy Javascript for just the contents. Navigation, ads, etc., maybe, but not the contents itself. Most webpages could be perfectly useful with Javascript completely disabled. Sadly, many aren't.
- tantalor 6y agoFancy JavaScript has nothing to do with serving static content. JavaScript itself is (or should be) static content anyway. If you're talking about using JS to load content on page load, for whatever reason, that async content can also be static. For example some sites use the URL fragment (hash parameter) to load content, but the server does not receive this: The fragment identifier functions differently to the rest of the URI: its processing is exclusively client-sided with no participation from the web server - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment
- ortusdux 6y agoI have wondered in the past if the benefits of a 'jettison damaged engine' feature would outweigh the risks.
- londons_explore 6y agoI suspect most airframes dont have sufficient spare strength to handle the imbalanced forces of an engine on one wing but not the other during flight.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- just_steve_h 6y agoIt's unclear what benefit there would be. On the other hand, instantly changing the balance of the aircraft by jettisoning a large mass from one wing would almost certainly make the aircraft uncontrollable. An American Airlines DC-10 crashed after takeoff from Chicago in 1979 (?), after one engine separated from the wing. At the time, it was the deadliest crash in the US.
- danaliv 6y agoThe loss of control in that accident was caused by slat asymmetry. Removing an engine, by itself, wouldn’t be enough to induce loss of control.
- danaliv 6y agoI’m trying to imagine a scenario where that would be beneficial. Maybe uncommanded thrust reverser deployment. Although I think in that case it’s likely to “self-jettison” anyway!
- geff82 6y agoPilot here. You always want to keep the engine for the reason of weight and balance and aerodynamical integrity.
- 6y ago
- haunter 6y agoRecording of the ATC https://twitter.com/ryancaustin1/status/1363236118657957895?s=21 https://twitter.com/ryancaustin1/status/1363236118657957895?... Video of the flying debris https://twitter.com/jacdecnew/status/1363241028690599938?s=21 https://twitter.com/jacdecnew/status/1363241028690599938?s=2...
- mannykannot 6y agoWRT the debris video: personally, I would be paying more attention to looking for anything falling in my direction. The debris may flutter like falling paper, but they are much more substantial.
- throw0101a 6y agoAnimated recreation with audio: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8 * Via: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/ual-328-uncontained-engine-failure-den/ https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/ual-328-u...
- emmanueloga_ 6y ago"the right hand engine's (PW4077) inlet separated associated with the failure of the engine." This description is rather nonchalant but how can this possibly happen!? May this be related to the age of the aircraft? "Ground observers reported hearing the sound of an explosion like bang, smoke and saw the debris falling down." I mean, an engine about to explode sounds like the kind of thing that a routine pre-flight inspection should be able to catch...
- ceejayoz 6y agoFailures happen. So do mistakes. We design planes to be resistant as a result. There are many engine issues that would not be visually apparent. Metal fatigue in the turbine blades, a bolt that’s the wrong size for its hole. Aviation has seen it all.
- terramex 6y agoIt looks like of of the fan blades detached and ripped cowling off. Such engine defects are usually not detectable during routine pre-flight inspection, for that you need to disassemble whole engine, check bearings, do x-ray inspection of turbine to look for metal fatigue or micro cracks etc. Two years ago there was very similar incident, also Boeing 777 with PW4000 engine: http://aerossurance.com/safety-management/ndi-failures-b777-pw4077-fbo/ http://aerossurance.com/safety-management/ndi-failures-b777-...
- markdown 6y agoLots of passenger planes have been flightless for months as a result of travel restrictions. It would be interesting to see how long this particular bird has been sitting on the ground.
- funkaster 6y agoliveatc recording: https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16129.0;attach=10823 https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1...
- sydney6 6y agoOddly enough, something similar happened today just a few kilometers from where i live. https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/longtail-aviation/boeing-747-loses-parts-after-take-off-from-maastricht-diverts-to-liege-two-people-injured/ https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/longtail-aviation/boeing-...
- ledauphin 6y agotoday was quite weird for Boeing airplanes, as well as for United. United Flight 1832 (a 737-8) from Cancun to Houston had a single engine shutdown on the way and had to divert to New Orleans.
- TangoFox 6y agoI'm an Air Traffic Controller at Houston Center, and a regular user of this website. Today I was the Radar Associate controller in the Ocean West sector when that aircraft flew through. The Radar Associate works alongside the Radar Controller, and performs coordinations and other actions to assist the Radar Controller. It is the Radar Controller who talks with the aircraft on frequency. In the Ocean West sector, the Radar Associate controller coordinates with Mexico's Air Traffic Controllers to determine safe routes, altitudes, and crossing times at the FIR boundary, as well as pass along any other pertinent information. I won't answer any questions about today's event here, but if anyone has any other questions, feel free to ask. I will also double-check the FAA's social media guidelines when I go back to work tomorrow. So, if I don't answer your question today, please check tomorrow. TF or "Tango Foxtrot" are my operating initials - something which every Air Traffic Controller has and is unique per facility. We use our operating initials to identify ourselves when we perform coordinations via the landline. I was also a Radar Associate controller at HCF Center (in Hawaii) for United Flight 1175, a Boeing 777, from San Fransisco to Honolulu when it lost its engine cowling back in 2018. The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of FAA.
- ledauphin 6y agoActually, one thing I was wondering after I got the alert about the 7700 (via flightradar24) - is there anything I'm missing in terms of a reasonably reliable way to figure out what Center frequency a given airplane is currently communicating on, when not low enough to be talking to Approach? I'm assuming there isn't, because handoffs from departure seem to vary frequencies when I fly.
- wmij 6y agoOddly a similar engine incident happened on the same United flight route back in 2016. Apparently it was a bird strike back then. Link: http://avherald.com/h?article=4999bec5 http://avherald.com/h?article=4999bec5
- ficklepickle 6y agoThis is quite timely, I was just looking at similar incidents yesterday. It is somewhat similar to a BA A319 flight where the engine covers weren't latched. They immediately ripped off, taking out one of the engines. Similar footage of exposed engine internals. Safely landed after dumping fuel. That one led to a redesign of the latches. Another very interesting one I found was a prop going through the fuselage of a DC-8 in Edmonton in 2014. A passenger was inches from being killed. A319: https://avherald.com/h?article=462beb5e https://avherald.com/h?article=462beb5e DC-8: https://avherald.com/h?article=47cee08a&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=47cee08a&opt=0
- midasuni 6y agoThe BA pilot headed across central london back to heathrow, dropping debris along the way, rather than land at stansted - avoiding built up areas, but costing BA more.
- userbinator 6y agoThis has happened twice before to Southwest too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
- moltenguardian 6y agoProbably a dumb question, but why don't the pilots cut the fuel to the right engine after they know it's on fire?
- elteto 6y agoI’m almost certain they did. You might be seen the runoff in the lines?
- quiescant_dodo 6y agoThere are long checklists for handling uncommon scenarios like this. I would expect that was one of many items on the list, but I'm not familiar with the checklists. It is possible that the explosion disabled the fuel controls.
- gecko 6y agoThey do, but there may be residual gas or punctures that cause a gas leak. That's why each side of the plane has its own fuel tanks as well.
- PaulAnunda 6y agoSomeone in the comments mentioned that that isn't a fuel fire; its materials in the engine that are burning.
- l31g 6y agoWhat is burning is probably leftover oil.
- jacquesm 6y agoFanned by a couple of 100 mile/hour winds. It would take a small miracle for the fire to go out by itself under those conditions, they may have tried to flood it with CO2 but it's so open to the elements even that may no longer work.
- ZeKZ 6y agoSee this video where he explains what the pilots probably did during the checklists : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Wler87pwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Wler87pwY
- terramex 6y agoAlmost identical incident happened 3 years ago - the same type (B777-200), the same engine (PW4077), the same operator (United Airlines), the same side (right engine), the same failure (unconfined engine failure). https://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7&opt=0 I would not be surprised if the whole fleet of this type/engine gets grounded for some time.
- leesalminen 6y agoAnd I’m supposed to fly on a 777-200 to Denver operated by United in just a few days. Yay!
- jfk13 6y agoAt least it's unlikely to be that 777-200.
- viraptor 6y agoThat specific plane will go through a lot of rebuilding, checks, thorough investigation, etc. Given a choice, I'd take that plane over another one.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoYeah but not if they rush the rebuilding and complete it in a few days. I suspect that's gonna require too much duct tape and bubble gum.
- Reason077 6y agoAssuming there’s no damage to the airframe itself, it could be back in the air pretty quickly. Changing the engine is a fairly routine procedure, which takes about a day: https://blog.virginatlantic.com/change-aircraft-engine/ https://blog.virginatlantic.com/change-aircraft-engine/
- 6y ago
- soheil 6y agoI like how people are just standing next to pieces of plane and playing soccer in the background, going like just another day with pieces of plane falling out of sky [0] [0] https://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_3.jpg https://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_3....
- Aperocky 6y agoWell once they've already fallen there's not much more to it.. It's not like it's a continuous stream of debris coming from somewhere. But it does look dangerous when it would have first fell though.
- jacquesm 6y agoBetter than that they move the pieces. Finding the pieces in their exact location + weather pattern can give important clues as to the reason why this happened in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- paulmd 6y agoThat's not typical, I'd like to make that point. There are a lot of these engines going all over the world all the time and very seldom does anything like this happen. Most of them are built so the front doesn't fall off at all.
- dmoy 6y agoThat quoted ground observer. Do they work for the NTSB or something? I am 110% certain that if I saw a plane on fire in the sky, I would not have the presence of mind to remember the term "cloud deck", let alone the rest of those details. Ground observer: "Good sir, I do say that the cloud deck was quite low so I didn't get a good look, but the engine was mildly louder than usual, and possibly had smoke, but perhaps not, and appeared to be under control the whole time." Me, probably: "AAAAAAAAAAAAA PLANE ON FIRE IN THE SKY, RUN!!!"
- willyt 6y agoI expect the person interviewed is a pilot?
- dboreham 6y agoOr an engineer?
- throwanem 6y agoYou'd be surprised. Years back, I saw what looked to be a near midair collision, including a smoke trail from one of the involved aircraft, and watched for a while from the front right seat of the Jeep my boss was driving us to a job site in. Presence of mind isn't really an issue. You're more just trying to understand and follow what you're seeing. Today, of course, I'd be watching through my 500mm lens and taking pictures all the while. This was long before I got back into photography, though, and long before you could get a 500mm tele that didn't cost as much as a car. Even so, it was interesting, not frightening - remember that the sky is a long way away, and so are most things that happen there, weather notwithstanding. Never did find out what actually happened.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- azalemeth 6y agoIt's very likely that they're an AvHerald reader. It's the absolute de facto gold standard website in its field, and sensationalism and drama is not appreciated -- a large chunk of the usual audience are aviation professionals. My dad was a pilot, and I've got some few hours myself. You can bet that if either of us watched this event happen, we'd mentally be documenting it as best as we possibly can, both to try to predict any useful information (e.g should we try to move!), and for any subsequent investigation. The excellent safety record of aviation originates from a detailed and pedantic paper trail that is written in blood. It's by learning as much as possible from every incident, without fear of censure or blame, that makes the skies safer for everybody.
- GekkePrutser 6y agoThat's crazy, in the Netherlands today there was another flight that dropped engine parts (much smaller though, they're said to have been turbine blades) that hit cars and people. It was also an airliner (747-400). Considering how rare an occurrence is, it's really weird to have both happen on the exact same day. https://www.airlive.net/breaking-turbine-blades-of-a-boeing-747-400fs-engine-fell-on-several-parked-cars/ https://www.airlive.net/breaking-turbine-blades-of-a-boeing-... By the way I'm surprised that fire keeps going on the B772. I assume the fuel was cut off, especially as the turbine seems to be just spinning in the wind. I'd imagine the remaining fuel would burn off quickly? This would really be scary being a passenger (especially when you know the wing it's hanging under is full of fuel).
- ddalex 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
- foepys 6y agoI read on the German news about the Dutch incident and came to HN because I knew that somebody would've posted about it here. Found this thread and didn't fully read the headline, just "Boeing" and "engine failure". It took me a few seconds to realize that this was a completely different incident.
- t0mas88 6y agoThe Dutch incident is a relatively common one, the reason it's in the news is that turbine blades fell down on a residential area and someone got minor burns from picking one up. It's more typical to have this kind of failure early in the take off where the parts would fall on the airport and nobody would talk about it. All the rest of the news about circling at 10,000ft and then landing at a nearby airport is completely standard procedure that gets practiced all the time in the 6 months simulator checks. Basically you climb high enough to be able to dump fuel without it reaching the ground (minimum 6000ft, preferably higher) and still not too high such that you're burning a lot of fuel quickly because at 10,000 ft fuel usage is way higher than at 30,000. Then when the fuel dump is complete, engine secured, checklists done it's a relatively normal landing. Especially if you have 4 engines but even with 2 it's a landing every pilot can do and is trained for all the time.
- integrate-this 6y agoI'm starting to feel bad for Boeing.
- trimbo 6y agoVASAviation already has the radar/ATC video up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8
- rossjudson 6y agoYou should see the accident from the day before: https://avherald.com/h?article=4e35302b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=4e35302b&opt=0 The plane began to "distribute engine parts". The pictures show us just how impressive the distribution was.
- ledauphin 6y agosame day, actually - this was only about 8 hours ago.
- dheera 6y agoSome honest questions here for experts: 0. Why was the engine flaming in the first video? Why didn't the pilots cut fuel to that engine immediately and use the other engine to land? 1. What is the best way to communicate issues to the pilot if you're a passenger and see something the pilot can't see? For example once I was sitting in the back of the aircraft on Airtran and I saw a screw on the jet loosening and almost falling out. I told a flight attendant but they were just kind of "Um hmm okay thanks for letting us know! Would you like any orange juice?"
- interestica 6y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster - 8 January 1989 - The Kegworth air disaster - British Midland Flight 92, a Boeing 737-400 - Pilots had an engine issue and shut down the good engine by mistake. > The pilots throttled back the working right engine instead of the malfunctioning left engine. They had no way of visually checking the engines from the cockpit, and the cabin crew — who did not hear the captain refer to the right hand engine in his cabin address — did not inform them that smoke and flames had been seen from the left engine. > Several passengers sitting near the rear of the plane noticed smoke and sparks coming from the left engine. > The pilots mistakenly shut down the functioning engine. They selected full thrust from the malfunctioning one and this increased its fuel supply, causing it to catch fire. Of the 126 people aboard, 47 died and 74 sustained serious injuries. I have no idea what the best way to communicate would be, but this is an example of an incident where it could have saved lives. It would be good if there was a protocol. (Perhaps requiring the captain's address to mention which engine they believe has the issue).
- mjg59 6y agoNot an expert, but: if there had still been fuel supplied to that engine, the fire would have been a lot worse. If you watch the video the fire clearly becomes less intense over time, and the footage of the landing suggests it's out by then. Remember that fuel isn't the only flammable thing there - engines need oil for lubrication, and in combination with whatever residual fuel was in the system and potentially sprayed everywhere, it's not surprising that you'd have enough to burn for a short time.
- WaitWaitWha 6y agoQs: Anyone tracking the quantity of these events as it relates to the pandemic? Has there been an uptick? If so, can it be correlated with maintenance crew availability?
- whatever1 6y agoMaybe a system for emergency detaching of the failed engine with a parachute would help aleviate the consequences of flying with a uncontrollably vibrating fireball?
- doctor_eval 6y agoThe kind of incident that happened on this flight is incredibly rare, and in fact nobody got hurt. Sadly, while I get where you’re going, what you propose would almost certainly make emergencies more common, not less. To implement your solution you’d need at least: - Some kind of mechanical release to let the engine go - reliable ways to disconnect the electricity, fuel, control, hydraulic and other connections without affecting the rest of the aircraft when the engine detached - a parachute with a release mechanism Each of these mechanisms comes with its own disastrous failure case: - engine mechanically releases when it shouldn’t, taking everything with it (this has happened [0]), or engine is released while still producing thrust despite the fire, destroying the wing or tail - hydraulic or other lines don’t release when they should, taking everything with it in an otherwise survivable situation - parachute fails, dropping engine on people, parachute catches fire in flight, parachute accidentally deploys in flight... This is just off the top of my head, I’m sure there are many other potential problems. Sometimes the best solution is to work out what happened and make it less likely to happen, rather than add stuff to catch it after it fails. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
- mafuy 6y agoSurely such a system would add more causes of failure than it could alleviate. I mean, you literally want to decrease the bond between engine and wing.
- _underfl0w_ 6y agoOof. I would not want to be the bystander whose house an entire engine fell on, even with a parachute haha
- argvargc 6y ago
- anigbrowl 6y agoThat second-last photo of the ?cowling? on the ground with no damage to the house or the vehicle is just astonishing.
- subhro 6y agoNo doubt this was a happy ending, but modern airplanes like the 777 are perfectly capable of flying, even climbing with one engine. So, while it seems very heroic on the part of the pilot, it is pretty ordinary and non news. What I do think is a happy outcome is the debris from the disintegrating engine did not fall on someone and kill/injure them. Source: Pilot.
- dghlsakjg 6y agoFlying on one engine is one thing. Flying one engine while the other is on fire due to unknown causes is another. Still newsworthy in my book. Source: also a pilot
- subhro 6y agoRespectfully disagree. When you are flying with one turbofan, it does not matter why the other engine is on fire. The checklist says, shut off the fuel, if W&B allows, move fuel off the wing and drown the engine in CO2. Source: Over 3500 hours turbine time.
- dghlsakjg 6y agoIm not saying that following the checklist is particularly hard, or the mechanics of what you need to do is outside the skill level of any competent pilot. I’m saying that practicing engine-outs/fires is psychologically different than bringing a flaming aircraft safely to the ground with several hundred souls on board.
- sadfev 6y agoThis could have gotten so bad so fast. Well trained pilots, arc, decent protocols and some luck saved 231 lives here!
- throwawayboise 6y agoOther discussion, ostensibly by professional pilots https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncontained-engine-failure.html https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/638797-united-b777-uncon...
- waynesonfire 6y agoPretty nice view of the burning engine from inside the plane, https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1363245241109782528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1363248854347501570%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsimpleflying.com%2Funited-boeing-777-loses-engine-parts%2F https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1363245241109782528?ref...
- cuechan 6y agoReading this sentence makes me uncomfortable
- cbsks 6y agoHere’s a good video of the flight path and radio communications with the tower: https://youtu.be/G7-zh7Sebr8 https://youtu.be/G7-zh7Sebr8 It’s always amazing too me how calm everyone seems in emergency situations like that. It almost seems like a routine flight.
- dkdk8283 6y ago> The aircraft returned to Denver for a safe landing on runway 26 about 23 minutes after departure. The aircraft stopped on the runway for a check by emergency services. Emergency services advised of an active fire within the right hand engine and extinguished the fire a few minutes later.
- hntestacc 6y agoThis is a test. If you see this, please pass through.
- chovybizzass 6y ago...aaaaaaand that's why i refuse to fly.
- technicolorwhat 6y agoFellow scared dude here. I still fly even though I am terrified. Its annoying but don't let it stop you from seeeing all the beautiful places in the world. Usually I just get absolutely drunk, fake being sober going trough control and unfortunately that kinda works. Annoying hangover though. hahah. Wish I could do sth about it!
- voiper1 6y agoIt sounds terrifying, but even so it landed safely. Statistically, flying is safer than car travel...
- midasuni 6y agoYou’re more likely to die on the drive to the airport than on the plane. Irony means you’d personally stay at home, but then have an engine cowling land on you in your garden.
- baptistejamin 6y agoI don’t really understand why this information is now #1 on HackerNews. Boeing 777 engines are the world’s largest turbofans and pw4000 Engine, involved in this explosion is in production since the 80/90, and is already used on other Airframes like a330. I know this accident looks impressive, but engine explosions like this one are things that happens years over years. On Airbus a380, similar explosions occurred. This kind of explosions looks very impressive, but those are things that happens quite a lot in aviation Industry.
- fit2rule 6y ago>I don’t really understand why this information is now #1 on HackerNews. Because HN readers invest, and this could have given some of them time to short Delta/Boeing stock ..
- martyvis 6y agoJuan Browne, a 777 pilot, always gives a great citizen reporter / industry insider take on these incidents https://youtu.be/Tkieg1ZFcPE https://youtu.be/Tkieg1ZFcPE
- leemailll 6y agoVideo of flight track and atc recording : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8
- dzonga 6y agoless than 30 days ago. I made a comment[0] here on HN that Boeing planes safety records make your bowels shift, if you look up their safety records before you fly. glad everyone on that flight was safe. but yeah airlines need to have a disclaimer when you fly certain planes. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904047
- cranekam 6y agoIn that comment you assert 777s “break in half”. Where did you get this from? There has been 8 hull losses and only one “broke in half” (Asiana) after it was basically flown into the ground. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#777-200ER https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#777-200ER Your comment, which implies the 777 is unsafe, is nonsense. The 777 has a great record.
- ThinkBeat 6y agoNot long ago, an airplane rained down a few parts near Denver. Today an aircraft has a similar thing happen. Is it possible that airplanes that have been grounded for a long time thanks to the pandemic have not received the care they should have? The two aircraft did not have the same cause and I think different parts came lose but one of the results were similar. And somewhat close together
- throwaway189262 6y agoIt might be that Denver has more frequent failure. Takeoff power is scaled by temp, altitude, and cargo weight. Denver is high altitude. And a hub with lots of long range flights. The plane was going to Hawaii. I bet plane was heavy with engines near full power. Most likely time for engine explodey
- IndySun 6y agoSo, large, popular, commercial airplanes, are passing their mandatory and thorough pre-flight safe-to-fly inspections, but then having catastrophic failures within minutes of take off. It must mean that pre-flight inspections (to quote George Carlin) an illusion of safety? ie Not fit for purpose.