Ba777 engine fire Las Vegas

[onyx39]

fatboy69 said:

onyx39 said:

Ouch.

Jeez....

Thank god that they hadn't reached 'the point of no return' as I fear that had they taken off we might be reading a very different story.

I wonder how long the wing would have stayed attached to the fuselage had the aircraft left the ground.

The pilots clearly made an extremely quick & correct decision.

True but equally, would the flames have taken hold more with the aircraft being static, than if it was travelling more quickly or airbourne, thereby concentrating the damage. Obviously wouldn't want to be in a position to find out!

[surveyor]

fatboy69 said:

onyx39 said:

Ouch.

Jeez....

Thank god that they hadn't reached 'the point of no return' as I fear that had they taken off we might be reading a very different story.

I wonder how long the wing would have stayed attached to the fuselage had the aircraft left the ground.

The pilots clearly made an extremely quick & correct decision.

I think it's more dramatic because it's on the ground. The fuel drips down and pools concentrating the fire. In the air the fuel would not do this, they have extinguishers which may have been more effective and not forgetting the engine is a part of the plane that is meant to get hot...

Concorde which is what comes to everyone's mind was different where the fuel tank itself was ruptured, and a very different design I suspect.

[onyx39]

onyx39 said:

surveyor said:

onyx39 said:

Ouch.

Repairable I wonder? Does not look like it to a know nothing like me.

I just asked that exact question on PPRUNE... I will post any answer I get.

to quote someone on PPRUNE "Already declared a hull loss". No idea if he is just stating what was said on another post, or has inside knowledge.

[jamieduff1981]

Doesn't look like the engines had much to do with it to me.

[Mojocvh]

Some right chestwigs on that thread....

[saaby93]

jamieduff1981 said:

Doesn't look like the engines had much to do with it to me.

Are we still sure its an engine fire or was it the engine fanning the blaze inboard?

[tim0409]

onyx39 said:

onyx39 said:

surveyor said:

onyx39 said:

Ouch.

Repairable I wonder? Does not look like it to a know nothing like me.

I just asked that exact question on PPRUNE... I will post any answer I get.

to quote someone on PPRUNE "Already declared a hull loss". No idea if he is just stating what was said on another post, or has inside knowledge.

I don't say this with any particular knowledge (other than a dad who was an aircraft engineer...) but that does not look like it is any way economical to repair.

Edited by tim0409 on Wednesday 9th September 15:47

[Eric Mc]

tim0409 said:

I don't say this with any particular knowledge (other than a dad who was an aircraft engineer...) but that does look like it is any way economical to repair,.

So - what are you trying to say?

Is it repairable or is it not?

[surveyor]

saaby93 said:

jamieduff1981 said:

Doesn't look like the engines had much to do with it to me.

Are we still sure its an engine fire or was it the engine fanning the blaze inboard?

I'd suspect that its less of an engine fire (they are designed to do that) and more of a failure of a disc or blade. There will be a report on doubt.

[tim0409]

Eric Mc said:

tim0409 said:

I don't say this with any particular knowledge (other than a dad who was an aircraft engineer...) but that does look like it is any way economical to repair,.

So - what are you trying to say?

Is it repairable or is it not?

Apologies, I will need to edit post - after a chat with my Dad this afternoon, he said that in his opinion he did not think it economic to repair.

[RobGT81]

Eric Mc said:

So - what are you trying to say?

Is it repairable or is it not?

I would guess it's buggered. It's not just the immediate area and all the frames that will need replacing/repairing, there will be loads of warped bits that are not immediately apparent.

[onyx39]

RobGT81 said:

Eric Mc said:

So - what are you trying to say?

Is it repairable or is it not?

I would guess it's buggered. It's not just the immediate area and all the frames that will need replacing/repairing, there will be loads of warped bits that are not immediately apparent.

General comments on PPRUNE indicate that it wont fly again.

[PurpleTurtle]

One of those fibreglassing kits from Halfords and a bit of Isopon 38, job jobbed!

[RobGT81]

Speed tape and a dab of PRC.

[Seight_Returns]

Please could someone please clarify the meaning of the phrase "uncontained engine failure" that I'm reading repeatedly on the Pprune thread and elsewhere ?

Does it mean a fire and/or engine components not being contained within the engine cowling ?

[Eric Mc]

More or less.

If an engine has a problem, it's far better if any disintegrating bits and pieces stay within the engine casing. That would be a "contained" failure. If bits fly out of the casing they are liable to damage the fuselage and/or wings. That would be an "uncontained" failure.

[Brother D]

Seight_Returns said:

Please could someone please clarify the meaning of the phrase "uncontained engine failure" that I'm reading repeatedly on the Pprune thread and elsewhere ?

Does it mean a fire and/or engine components not being contained within the engine cowling ?

Generally Engine parts leaving their proper place, be it fan blades or disk they attach to... Neither being a 'good thing' and generally not supposed to happen.

Edited to add example of disk failure rather than blade failure luckily on the ground during maintenance tests (note part of disk embedded in the other engine):

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/...

Edited by Brother D on Wednesday 9th September 16:57

[Smollet]

Eric Mc said:

The ways of the mods are not consistent. The Shoreham crash was moved in here pretty promptly. This accident probably won't get moved at all. I'm not that concerned really. However, you do get better technical chat in here but you will get a larger volume of chat in the "news" section.

It is interesting that it only took a few posts before a couple of the posters were rowing over in the News Forum thread.

Eric, I started it in here

[Eric Mc]

Fair enough.

I don't think where a thread starts is the main influence on where a thread ends up, to be honest.

[saaby93]

Brother D said:

Generally Engine parts leaving their proper place, be it fan blades or disk they attach to... Neither being a 'good thing' and generally not supposed to happen.

Edited to add example of disk failure rather than blade failure luckily on the ground during maintenance tests (note part of disk embedded in the other engine):

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/...

Figure 3 page 4 is impressive
strong words too

Because the Safety Board is concerned that another failure may be imminent if immediate action is not taken, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should require that all CF6-80A and -80C2 HPT stage 1 disks and applicable -80E1 HPT stage 1 disks that have more than 3,000 CSN and have not been reworked in accordance with GE SBs 72-0788 or 72-1089 or have not yet been inspected in accordance with SB 72-0779 or ASB 72-A1026 be immediately removed from service for inspection and rework in accordance with these SBs.

Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 9th September 18:00