United 777-200 uncontained engine event - cowling lands in front yard


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dagger said:

Return to DIA on one engine was pretty routine, with a smooth landing.

Plane was one of the oldest 777-200 builds, fifth off the line, but that's pretty much immaterial here.

Age of the airframe is irrelevant imo.

How old was the engine ?? 

When was it last overhauled ??

Would be my questions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A 777 flying from DEN to HNL is unlikely to be all that heavy and may not have needed to dump fuel anyways. Besides, most twinjets can land at pretty close to maximum takeoff weight in an emergency.

Edited by J.O.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

I'd suppose the aircraft was pretty heavy since it had just departed.

Our of curiosity, and I'm sure this is a dumb question, but would an engine fire make fuel dumping out of the question?

If the fire was confirmed to be out, and there was a necessity to dump fuel it wouldn't be an issue.

As per post by J.O., hard to imagine it being all up weight. 

Another consideration here, is even though KDEN has long runways, field elevation is above 5000 feet, which needs to be considered in the landing calculations. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of the thread say “uncontained failure”. I don’t see from any of the videos, photos, or information the any blades went through the engine case. Definitely catastrophic failure. Is there any other information on blades existing the engine through the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, AMEfirst said:

The title of the thread say “uncontained failure”. I don’t see from any of the videos, photos, or information the any blades went through the engine case. Definitely catastrophic failure. Is there any other information on blades existing the engine through the case?

I believe that, in this case,  the "Uncontained" refers to the fact that a lot of debris left the engine area.

With a "normal" engine fire, no parts of the engine leave the aircraft...the fire is simply extinguished and the engine is out  of service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IFG said:

Indeed! Damage at wing root catches the eye, too. Looks mostly but not entirely to the fairing, but ... How far is that from tanks?

Not far at all but that’s pretty beefy wing structure in that area. Scary deal regardless!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

I believe that, in this case,  the "Uncontained" refers to the fact that a lot of debris left the engine area.

With a "normal" engine fire, no parts of the engine leave the aircraft...the fire is simply extinguished and the engine is out  of service.

Uncontained Engine Failure

An “uncontained” engine failure is a failure where rotating elements of the engine penetrate the case of the engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AMEfirst said:

Uncontained Engine Failure

An “uncontained” engine failure is a failure where rotating elements of the engine penetrate the case of the engine.

I know that but consider this......perhaps the author saying "uncontained"is not 100 %  airplane engine  savvy and unintentionally used "uncontained"....not really a big deal is it?? 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AMEfirst said:

Uncontained Engine Failure

An “uncontained” engine failure is a failure where rotating elements of the engine penetrate the case of the engine.

Classic definition is indeed correct.

There was a similar event near Hawaii also a 777 but  

Quote

Analysis The airplane, a Boeing 777-222, experienced a full length fan blade fracture in the No. 2 (right) engine, a Pratt & Whitney (P&W) PW4077 turbofan, while in cruise flight shortly before top of descent. The examination of the No. 2 engine revealed most of the inlet duct and all of the left and right fan cowls were missing. Two small punctures were found in the right side fuselage just below the window belt with material transfer consistent with impact from pieces of an engine fan blade. The examination of the engine's fan blades revealed fan blade No. 11 was fractured transversely across the airfoil directly above the fairings that are between the base of each blade. The other fan blade, which was identified as fan blade No. 10 and was the adjacent trailing blade, was fractured across the airfoil at about midspan. Laboratory examination of fan blade No. 11 revealed a low cycle fatigue (LCF) fracture that originated on the interior cavity wall directly below the surface.

this may be of interest https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/96738/pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 - "The examination of the engine's fan blades revealed fan blade No. 11 was fractured transversely across the airfoil directly above the fairings that are between the base of each blade. The other fan blade, which was identified as fan blade No. 10 and was the adjacent trailing blade, was fractured across the airfoil at about midspanmidspan".

Looking at the picture above of the naked engine: if history doesn't repeat itself, it sure rhymes a lot ;)

 

 - Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juan Browne has does a really good job of explaining incidents and accidents.  He's a 777 pilot himself and was a US military pilot in the past.  His military and civilian pilot experience shows when he describes the ins and outs of events like this.  He did a fabulous job of explaining the Snowbird crash last year.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.