Thinking about the plane that had the roof ripped off. Yikes...

(Written on 24/02/2021)(Permalink)

I wondered about that myself, as I flew from Seattle to Honolulu. There isn't a lot of land between those two airports. I'd imagine there would be some discussion on what to do. DAL 478 did the HNL to SEA run, and it's just a fraction over 6 hours. Almost entirely over water. I don't know what the glide rate of a 757-200 is, but I doubt it's long enough to glide from the middle of that route to an airport. Heading to California might be the best shot, but even that could be unreachable. It's a good thing engine failures aren't more common, and dual engine failures extremely rare. At least dual engine failures due to mechanical issues. Obviously if the plane was damaged in such a way to increase drag past the part of having a dead engine, the options would be a lot more limited.

(Written on 24/02/2021)(Permalink)

Interesting... It has happened before, but very infrequently. United Airlines Flight 1175 On February 13, 2018, a Boeing 777-200 with PW4077-112 engines performing United Airlines Flight 1175 from San Francisco to Honolulu, about 45 minutes before landing, suffered a fan blade failure, which caused much of the inlet and cowl to separate from the engine. There was minor damage to the fuselage caused by the ejected debris. The NTSB's final report noted that the primary cause was lapses and failures in P&W's fan blade inspection, resulting in a cracked blade erroneously returning to service. An inspector had seen possible sign of the crack in the blade years before but attributed it to paint. Other noted failures: Korean Air Flight 2708 On May 27, 2016, a Boeing 777-300 of Korean Air, operating as Korean Air Flight 2708 from Haneda Airport in Tokyo to Seoul's Gimpo International Airport, was accelerating for take off when its left engine, PW4098-112 engine suffered an un

(Written on 24/02/2021)(Permalink)

I was in Denver in 2019, and the run up to take off had some people snarking if we were going to drive to our destination. It is thinner air, but we ran for quite a while until finally lifting off. The view of the mountains was amazing.

(Written on 24/02/2021)(Permalink)

From a third part setting, I'd think more of the problem lies in companies struggling with profitability and wanting to 'contain' maintenance costs. It's not cheap to do a complete replacement of a bunch of engines. It's not cheap to take a plane off the line to take its engines off and inspect every blade in both engines. History is filled with stories of shoddy maintenance being performed by third party maintenance facilities that (cut corners) are priced well. Plus the FAA, as we should all be aware of, was allowing companies to 'self-certify' their repairs. Who knows who last saw that engine. Who knows how through the inspections at the factory were if it hadn't had any maintenance to this point. If anything, I'd wonder if United found a 'just as good' maintenance facility that saved them big money, and they bought it. They got what they wanted. Cheap maintenance. Pay now, or pay later? But the investigators will (hopefully) track down the issues.

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)

Different plane, and different situations, but potentially just as disastrous. 232 was brought down because the center engine failed, and the failure was severe enough to slice through many hydraulic systems that were, unbelievably, interconnected. You would assume that if one line was cut, the other systems would still function, but the tail area was where a of of them concentrated connections and pressure lines. Yes, changes were made. Did it make it safer? For that type of engine failure, yes. We can't mince words here. It is possible that this engine failure could have been a heck of a lot worse. If those P&W engines have a *potential* for a blade separation that could lead to an uncontained engine failure, that needs to be taken seriously. On that day TWO engines of that model failed. What is the connection? Hollow blades? Well those blades need to be examined as soon as humanly possible. Was it a bad lot? Was it a bad inspection process? Was it just a bad design. All of that

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)

So, as the plane you are in is heading to a crater, about to be created by said plane, we can rest assured that you will be cursing the airline, and the various inspectors that approved the engine that had an uncontained engine failure, that propelled a large part of a fan disc through the lower fuselage, into the cables connecting the front of the plane to the rear, causing it to lose control and plummet to the ground. So, who routed the cables where they were, who recommended that engine as a choice on their plane. Who DELIVERED said plane to the airline. There is room for Boeing to have some degree of culpability in this. Is Boeing guilty? That remains to be seen. Is P&W on the hook? Yep, and if investigators find that Boeing knew there *might* be issues with the P&W engines, SO IS BOEING! So things need to play out. The volumes of data on the maintenance on those engines needs to be combed through. Who last looked at those engines. What kinds of tests were run. Who did thos

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)

True. I remember, decades ago, the Opal partnership, and Opal engines showing up in some cars. I thought they were GM's low end cars. I do remember people losing their poop over finding an 'Oldsmobile' engine in a Chevy. Well, they BOTH a GM product. Speaking of, I had a guy rip my butt for owning a Toyota, and being curious, I checked the 'foreign content', and found out that my Toyota, made in America, had a higher percentage of 'American made' parts than his GM car. I was shocked for a Toyota. But whatever. I get it. And another post of mine is ripped to shreds. Enjoy trolls. I'm back for a limited time only...

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)

So, did they eat the fish, or the chicken? :-D

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)

The plane was a 'package deal' from Boeing. It's Boeing's product. The engine was on their list of suppliers. There is an implied degree of responsibility for what happens to that engine but not necessarily a 'legal' responsibility. True, it's a P&W issue, but the media isn't totally out there to refer to it as being a 'Boeing issue'. The article itself separated out the P&W component, but it WAS a Boeing plane. If you had a Chevrolet car with an Opal engine, would you go to Opal for an engine failure, or Chevrolet/GM?

(Written on 23/02/2021)(Permalink)