Engine Fire over Denver

Engine Fire over Denver

Author
Discussion

Gameface

16,071 posts

41 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Dogwatch said:
Petrus1983 said:
Apparently that weighs about a ton and aerial shots show it obviously used the householder's transit type van roof as a 'soft' landing before bouncing off onto the lawn. And the investigators insist that all debris must not be moved rolleyes
A ton? That doesn't seem right.

normalbloke

4,504 posts

183 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Dogwatch said:
Petrus1983 said:
Apparently that weighs about a ton and aerial shots show it obviously used the householder's transit type van roof as a 'soft' landing before bouncing off onto the lawn. And the investigators insist that all debris must not be moved rolleyes
If that weighs a ‘ton’, I’ll eat my hat.

Gameface

16,071 posts

41 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
There would be nothing left of that truck if that weighed a ton.

El stovey

37,918 posts

227 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Crumpet said:
El stovey said:
Crumpet said:
Interesting that the fire kept burning. Not something you’d want 180 minutes from land somewhere over the Pacific. eek
I doubt it burned for very long though? Possibly just some residual fuel etc in the engine before and just after it was shut down.

Doesn’t look like the fire spread very far.

In fact this looks like a contained engine event as all the high energy rotating bits like blades etc appear to have remained inside the engine casing (or not penetrated the sides) Obviously that doesn’t help anyone on the ground as the cowl etc hit fell around them.
I sort of assumed the photo of it from the ground was back on final approach to land so therefore still burning. However, I guess it would’ve caused quite a commotion on landing though when the fire trucks did their inspection. Was there an emergency evacuation?
There was some photos from in the cabin and film from the landing and it didn’t look like it. People were all cheering after landing.

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/13632663661...

I think it landed at 21:00 rolled down to the end of the runway and stopped and the fire crews just gave it a good spray then after about an hour it was towed to another area.



Denver is pretty high up and it looks like there wasn’t much (if any) fuel jettison going on so it was probably a long landing roll due to weight, altitude and trying to keep the brakes cool etc.

Some first hand accounts here.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/02/20/broomfield-a...

Kirby Klememts said:
“My wife and I were sitting in the living room, reading the paper, when we heard a loud bang,’ ” recounted Kirby Klements, the homeowner, a couple hours later. He stood in front of the engine ring, which was taller than him. “First, I thought it was debris from a trampoline from my neighbor’s yard. Came out and looked at it and knew right away that it was the front of an engine of an airplane.”

eldar

16,093 posts

160 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Dogwatch said:
Petrus1983 said:
Apparently that weighs about a ton and aerial shots show it obviously used the householder's transit type van roof as a 'soft' landing before bouncing off onto the lawn. And the investigators insist that all debris must not be moved rolleyes
Different from the blue ice incidents, where the evidence melted away, somewhat.

Baron Greenback

5,190 posts

114 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all

Cold

10,772 posts

54 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Gameface said:
There would be nothing left of that truck if that weighed a ton.
Yep. It's caused damage to the pick-up, but hasn't exactly annihilated it.


Cold

10,772 posts

54 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Oh, and...



biggrin

MartG

17,572 posts

168 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Too soon ?


red_slr

12,444 posts

153 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Juan Browne is a current 777 pilot so I expect he will do a full video on this one probably later today or tomorrow.

This is the second 772 to lose its engine cowling mid flight in less than 2 years IIRC.

MikeGTi

1,900 posts

165 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
UA1175 (N773UA) had a similar issue in Feb 2018:



AvHerald said:
On Mar 6th 2018 the NTSB reported there had been an inflight separation of a fan blade and subsequent loss of the engine inlet and fan cowls of the right hand engine. Shortly after initiating the descent, at about FL327, the flight crew received a warning of an engine compressor stall, shut down the engine and proceeded to Honolulu without further incident. The aircraft received minor damage. The occurrence was rated an incident and is being investigated by the NTSB.
AvHerald Linky


Starfighter

3,735 posts

142 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
No evacuation. The aircraft stopped on the runway and the fire was put out. The aircraft was then pulled to a remote stand and the passengers were taken using steps and back to the terminal.

I blame Bulcifer.

GliderRider

875 posts

45 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Pinkie15 said:
Have read in a few reports on AAIB site that when the cowling's get shed/ripped off that quite often fuel & /or oil lines often get damaged and continue to flow even though actions are taken to shut the engine down.

Guess this will vary by engine manufacturer and where they site fuel/oil lines and ancillary components.

I was surprised that the first fan seems to be so intact, though hard to see in detail. Primary failure further 'into' the engine ?

Turns a lot faster than I expected for windmilling, too.
Better photo here from later on

The front fan blade in the 10 o'clock position appears to be missing a fair bit.

As this is a PW4077, does that mean that it's MASHed?

getmecoat

I emailed my cousin who lives in Broomfield. He was somewhat surprised that the pilot returned to Denver across the built up area, rather than using Broomfield's own 9000ft runway. My guess is that going for a runway with which he was more familiar made it a lot less to think about, plus, maybe, more fire engines there?

Edited by GliderRider on Sunday 21st February 16:57

aeropilot

23,747 posts

191 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all


Possibly unknown to the flight crew, but debris clearly took tore a chunk out of the fuselage at the wing root from this photo taken on the ground.....and possibly leaking something from the hole as well looking at the pool on the ground under the hole.....

Mave

6,610 posts

179 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
eharding said:
Those lighter coloured blades definitely don't look right. Could have been a manufacturing error, and they've actually fabricated those two out of cheese rather than high-end composites?
The first lighter ones looks like the leading edge is further back. I wonder if the tip has come off, and pulled off a leading edge segment and composite wrap

Crumpet

2,302 posts

144 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
GliderRider said:
I emailed my cousin who lives in Broomfield. He was somewhat surprised that the pilot returned to Denver across the built up area, rather than using Broomfield's own 9000ft runway. My guess is that going for a runway with which he was more familiar made it a lot less to think about, plus, maybe, more fire engines there?

Edited by GliderRider on Sunday 21st February 16:57
You wouldn’t generally consider crossing over a built up area as a factor in your decision making. The two airports are close enough as to make very little difference to flight time or track miles so returning to Denver is the very obvious choice.

They would have briefed the return to Denver in their departure briefing, possibly had the frequencies for the approach in standby and probably had the approach chart readily to hand as well. The company has all the maintenance facilities at Denver, can handle the passengers and the airport has the proper fire cover for something like a 777. They wouldn’t thank you for putting it down at Broomfield! biggrin

I haven’t really looked at any of the details but at first glance it looks about as close to a simulator scenario as it’s possible to get!

AlexS

1,441 posts

196 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
normalbloke said:
Dogwatch said:
Petrus1983 said:
Apparently that weighs about a ton and aerial shots show it obviously used the householder's transit type van roof as a 'soft' landing before bouncing off onto the lawn. And the investigators insist that all debris must not be moved rolleyes
If that weighs a ‘ton’, I’ll eat my hat.
The whole engine weighs around 7.4t. There is no way that the cowl lip is a ton.

As a comparison the RR Trent 800 weighs just over 6 tons, which is a clear example of the advantage that the 3 spool layout gave at that time.

sherman

8,104 posts

179 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Looks like it landed with a ton of force on the pickup bed it hit.

MarkwG

2,907 posts

153 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
El stovey said:
NTSB calling it an “engine event” - love these aviation euphemisms.

Loss of separation - mid air crash
Runway excursion- went off the runway
CFIT - crashed into a mountain
Hull loss - massive crash
A loss of separation is not the same as a mid air collision...
A runway excursion is the opposite of an incursion...
CFIT - the terrain doesn't need to be a mountain.
A hull loss is not necessarily a massive crash...
wink

Mave

6,610 posts

179 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:


Possibly unknown to the flight crew, but debris clearly took tore a chunk out of the fuselage at the wing root from this photo taken on the ground.....and possibly leaking something from the hole as well looking at the pool on the ground under the hole.....
This is the 2018 incident..