Engine Fire over Denver

Engine Fire over Denver

Author
Discussion

Mikebentley

2,515 posts

104 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.....
I think the wet patches are either the result of the fire crews foaming or there was some leakage from those with window seats.

Trevatanus

10,560 posts

114 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all

MikeGTi

1,900 posts

165 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Well.. really it's a P&W problem, not a Boeing problem..

..but have a snigger anyway biggrin

Brother D

2,942 posts

140 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
AlexS said:
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.
Its well known that the inlet is made from cast iron. If there is one thing aircraft designers are not worried about, its weight.

shouldbworking

4,528 posts

176 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Saw some impressive flat earther type posts on this today 'this is fake because bits landed in a built up area and there are no houses in the video'..

rightyo then carry on

Gary C

7,614 posts

143 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
Loosing a blade or part of a blade in a big turbine can't half make a mess.

Remember being sat astride a 660MW turbine trying to measure the shaft vibration after one of the LP blades had come off. The impressive bit was, it ate it and carried on.

Next time it happened we wern't so lucky.

Mind you, we were better off than that Duhva in South Africa.




MikeGTi

1,900 posts

165 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
United apparently grounding it's PW powered 777s:



Source: FlightRadar24

Corvid-2020

1,994 posts

43 months

Sunday 21st February
quotequote all
We lost some many years ago from a generating station. i remember being shown the patch in the turbine hall the blades / bits went through.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/...

My Grandparents lived near Woodford aerodrome. There was this "v-shaped plane" they were testing that some bits fell off into their garden and the field behind. The 'pond' in the field was still there in 2004 when my last Grandparent died. They were never told exactly what fell off the plane, but "if both had fallen off, the plane would have fallen from the sky....".

Kiribati268

472 posts

101 months

Monday 22nd 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.....
That is quite a hole there!

The pool of fluid is nothing though, A/C on the ground always piss out warm/hot water. I have no idea why or where it comes from, but it comes from a weird flange tap thing with 'HOT' labelled.

airbusA346

575 posts

117 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
MikeGTi said:
United apparently grounding it's PW powered 777s:



Source: FlightRadar24
Japan have also asked airlines to avoid using Boeing 777 aircraft with Pratt and Whitney 4000 engines for take-offs, landings and overflights in its territory until further notice.

JAL and ANA have grounded 32 of their 777's.

El stovey

37,914 posts

227 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
Kiribati268 said:
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.....
That is quite a hole there!

The pool of fluid is nothing though, A/C on the ground always piss out warm/hot water. I have no idea why or where it comes from, but it comes from a weird flange tap thing with 'HOT' labelled.
That’s usually a drain mast from the galley sinks it’s heated to stop it freezing.

Obviously it depends on the aircraft and how all the plumbing is designed.

You can get drain masts for all sorts of things like fuel or hydraulic fluid that might be leaking or pooling somewhere.

Fun if they get blocked and the engineers have to clear it.


Fat Fairy

487 posts

150 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
eharding said:
El stovey said:
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?
They’re a substitute, according to the Boeing 777 MEL and DDG (minimum equipment list and dispatch deviation guide) you can use the alternative cheese blades for 30 days as long as you don’t use engine anti ice and keep mice away from them.
I suspect that when the report comes out they'll find the right engine anti-mouse equipment was INOP, or possibly just having a snooze, resulting in rodent-induced holes in the cheese, which then lined up.

You hear about that sort of thing quite a lot in aviation incidents, which now I think about it probably implicates mice in far more accidents then is ever made public - I'm amazed the AAIB, NTSB etc haven't cottoned on to this.
This line of Aviation Safety is called the 'Swiss Cheese' model...

FF

red_slr

12,444 posts

153 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
772s with the same P&W are now restricted from UK airspace.

Interesting development given they have been remarkably reliable until fairly recently.

aeropilot

23,743 posts

191 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
red_slr said:
772s with the same P&W are now restricted from UK airspace.
And grounded worldwide if any on a G-reg.

Are there any on G-reg?

Do the early BA 777's use the P&W or the GE engine?

Edit:
BA fleet are RR Trent or GE90 power, so I doubt there are any G-reg P&W 777. CA covering all bases I suppose.

Edited by aeropilot on Monday 22 February 14:59

phil squares

44 posts

65 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
red_slr said:
772s with the same P&W are now restricted from UK airspace.
And grounded worldwide if any on a G-reg.

Are there any on G-reg?

Do the early BA 777's use the P&W or the GE engine?

Edit:
BA fleet are RR Trent or GE90 power, so I doubt there are any G-reg P&W 777. CA covering all bases I suppose.

Edited by aeropilot on Monday 22 February 14:59
Only three airlines in the world operate the PW-powered 200s. United, Japan Airlines and ANA. I think there are only about 60 frames in service right now worldwide.

matchmaker

7,432 posts

164 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
Gary C said:
Loosing a blade or part of a blade in a big turbine can't half make a mess.

Remember being sat astride a 660MW turbine trying to measure the shaft vibration after one of the LP blades had come off. The impressive bit was, it ate it and carried on.

Next time it happened we wern't so lucky.

Mind you, we were better off than that Duhva in South Africa.
Longannet?

Gary C

7,614 posts

143 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
matchmaker said:
Gary C said:
Loosing a blade or part of a blade in a big turbine can't half make a mess.

Remember being sat astride a 660MW turbine trying to measure the shaft vibration after one of the LP blades had come off. The impressive bit was, it ate it and carried on.

Next time it happened we wern't so lucky.

Mind you, we were better off than that Duhva in South Africa.
Longannet?
Heysham 2 unit 8 smile

aeropilot

23,743 posts

191 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
Gary C said:
matchmaker said:
Gary C said:
Loosing a blade or part of a blade in a big turbine can't half make a mess.

Remember being sat astride a 660MW turbine trying to measure the shaft vibration after one of the LP blades had come off. The impressive bit was, it ate it and carried on.

Next time it happened we wern't so lucky.

Mind you, we were better off than that Duhva in South Africa.
Longannet?
Heysham 2 unit 8 smile
Heysham 2, that takes me back to my yoof smile

JuniorD

8,129 posts

187 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
Crumpet said:
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!
Obvs they went back to Denver as that’s where their cars were parked, or from where they could get a direct company flight home.

Gary C

7,614 posts

143 months

Monday 22nd February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Gary C said:
matchmaker said:
Gary C said:
Loosing a blade or part of a blade in a big turbine can't half make a mess.

Remember being sat astride a 660MW turbine trying to measure the shaft vibration after one of the LP blades had come off. The impressive bit was, it ate it and carried on.

Next time it happened we wern't so lucky.

Mind you, we were better off than that Duhva in South Africa.
Longannet?
Heysham 2 unit 8 smile
Heysham 2, that takes me back to my yoof smile
Me to, but I'm still here some 33 years later smile