सभी
← Back to Squawk list
FAA Grounds Certain 777-200s Following Incident in Denver
Following yesterday's incident, where a United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure after departure from Honolulu, the FAA declared that all Boeing 777s equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4070 engines would be grounded until further notice. This would allow for a more thorough investigation in the matter whilst ensuring the safety of passengers on these aircraft. (theexplorerblog.com) और अधिक...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I can't figure out the significance nor the need to report how alternating seat rows face backward. Was that only to clarify the accuracy of the in-flight reports based on some viewer's unobstructed view of the disintegrating engine? I may be wrong, but that seems borderline *not newsworthy.*
Flight Global reports that the UK has now also grounded PW4000-112 engines.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/uk-bans-operations-with-pw4000-powered-777s/142548.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/uk-bans-operations-with-pw4000-powered-777s/142548.article
Flight Global reports that the UK has now also grounded PW4000-112 engines.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/uk-bans-operations-with-pw4000-powered-777s/142548.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/uk-bans-operations-with-pw4000-powered-777s/142548.article
I always loved the sound on the original United 777s. Shame they’ll be leaving soon. Does anyone know what the retirement date is? Probably stepped up now
I read turbofan engine designs are required to take extensive measures to prevent uncontained engine failure, particularly those from a predictable scenario such as a blade failure. The tests I've seen online for blade-out situations are all done on static test stands at ground level. The temperature and pressure conditions at flight speeds and altitudes, however, would be much different than in a static test stand. My guess is that newer models can accomplish more realistic testing via simulation, but older models didn't benefit from such analysis.
Simulating an engine failure, if you mean on a computer, concern me. Nothing can 'simulate' reality except reality.
Case in point, the video I saw this morning said that 'investigators were surprised to see a huge gash in the area of the wing root structure on the plane'. An engine failure isn't unheard of, but it can cause massive damage to the wing, and, as we know already from the SouthWest incident, damage to the passenger cabin as well. If part, or all of, the severed parts had gone through the wing, this Denver incident would have had a completely different, and horrific, conclusion. It wouldn't be engine parts raining down, but flaming wreckage and bodies.
'Simulating' potential catastrophic conditions, again if that is what you are suggesting, shouldn't even be considered.
Perhaps forbidding the use of hollow blades, or the use of multipart fan assemblies, and more often performing deep inspections of fan assemblies is what is needed. The engine is a complex garbage disposal that is not meant to swallow pieces of itself. If a bypass fan blade was sucked into the later stages, and that is what caused the failure, which it appears to be the case, then a rework of the design seems in order. As those fans get larger, there is a heck of a lot of force applied to those blades. Nothing is going to stop a blade, or blades, from ripping through the engine cowling/nacelle and anything else in its path. Same as propeller driven plane, only instead of one blade, you have potentially dozens, and with a higher level of momentum.
Case in point, the video I saw this morning said that 'investigators were surprised to see a huge gash in the area of the wing root structure on the plane'. An engine failure isn't unheard of, but it can cause massive damage to the wing, and, as we know already from the SouthWest incident, damage to the passenger cabin as well. If part, or all of, the severed parts had gone through the wing, this Denver incident would have had a completely different, and horrific, conclusion. It wouldn't be engine parts raining down, but flaming wreckage and bodies.
'Simulating' potential catastrophic conditions, again if that is what you are suggesting, shouldn't even be considered.
Perhaps forbidding the use of hollow blades, or the use of multipart fan assemblies, and more often performing deep inspections of fan assemblies is what is needed. The engine is a complex garbage disposal that is not meant to swallow pieces of itself. If a bypass fan blade was sucked into the later stages, and that is what caused the failure, which it appears to be the case, then a rework of the design seems in order. As those fans get larger, there is a heck of a lot of force applied to those blades. Nothing is going to stop a blade, or blades, from ripping through the engine cowling/nacelle and anything else in its path. Same as propeller driven plane, only instead of one blade, you have potentially dozens, and with a higher level of momentum.
Well, you're raising some good points. As a poster stated below, photos of the 2018 engine damage are almost indistinguishable from the recent incident. What else do they have in common ? Wait for it ... Complete loss of cowling.
Among other things, discharge of a fire bottle becomes ineffective. Mostly like a "white fart into the wind" as I heard in a pilot's utube video
There's speculation elsewhere about the materials of construction in a bulkhead.
Possibly a newer composite material differs from an aluminum material used on the engines for certification in say 1993 or 1994.
Among other things, discharge of a fire bottle becomes ineffective. Mostly like a "white fart into the wind" as I heard in a pilot's utube video
There's speculation elsewhere about the materials of construction in a bulkhead.
Possibly a newer composite material differs from an aluminum material used on the engines for certification in say 1993 or 1994.