Qantas pilot to passengers: 'We have a technical issue'

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

CrimsonWolf

Senior member
Oct 28, 2000
867
0
0
Oh hell, that's just a scratch. :awe:

This AA Boeing 767 with GE engines showed us how an uncontained engine failure is really done! :eek:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1059747/L/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/159079785/in/photostream/

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/69275-american-767-uncontained-engine-failure.html

Note that it was the left engine that had the uncontained failure. Well, take a look at the right engine in the third link...

Debris tore across the bottom of the aircraft and severed a fuel line causing a massive fire. Thankfully this happened during a maintenance run on the ground. This could have been a major tragedy if it happened in air.

Edit: Here's this quote from the NTSB report:

The examination of the left engine revealed that it had been cut in two at the HPT module with the front and rear sections of the engine hanging from the respective engine mounts. The HPT stage 1 and 2 disks were both missing from the engine. The HPT stage 2 disk was recovered essentially intact from the run up pad near the airplane. But the HPT stage 1 disk was found in four pieces that were recovered from the left engine's pylon, the belly of the airplane, the right engine's exhaust duct, and from a vacant lot, which was approximately 2,600 feet away from the airplane, on the south side of the airport across runways 7L/25R and 7R/25L. Liberated debris from the left engine resulted in numerous holes in the fuselage as well as the left and right wings that had numerous holes in the fuel tanks from where fuel leaked that fed the fire that burned the left wing and left side of the fuselage aft of the wing.
Click to expand...

As one posters in the other forums pointed out, I love the use of the term "liberated". It sounds so happy.
 
Last edited:
GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Can't be good publicity for the A380 program.

Boeing should step up its 747-8I marketing.

And yeah, that is pretty serious damage and turning around was the appropriate decision. Too bad it had to happen to such a new aircraft. Hope it came with a good warranty.
 
DivideBYZero

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
ichy said:
In order to be certified any commercial airliner has to be able to continue its takeoff if it loses an engine after V1 during the takeoff roll. Losing an engine once you've reached cruising altitude isn't a big deal at all on a four-engine airliner.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that, but I quoted someone suggesting THE ENTIRE JOURNEY be completed with the failure, which is flat out wrong.

Learn to read, people.
 
zokudu

zokudu

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2009
4,364
1
81
I don't know why but I find this whole thread about airplane failure it be fascinating. Does this make me a bad person?
 
brainhulk

brainhulk

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2007
9,376
454
126
i was on a 747 a long time ago that had to shut down an engine. I looked out the window and saw sparks coming out...I was like holy shit. This was 1hr into the flight and had to turn back. Some people started crying and held hands on our descent
 
sdifox

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
98,819
17,292
126
CrimsonWolf said:
Oh hell, that's just a scratch. :awe:

This AA Boeing 767 with GE engines showed us how an uncontained engine failure is really done! :eek:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1059747/L/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lafd/159079785/in/photostream/

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/69275-american-767-uncontained-engine-failure.html

Note that it was the left engine that had the uncontained failure. Well, take a look at the right engine in the third link...

Debris tore across the bottom of the aircraft and severed a fuel line causing a massive fire. Thankfully this happened during a maintenance run on the ground. This could have been a major tragedy if it happened in air.

Edit: Here's this quote from the NTSB report:



As one posters in the other forums pointed out, I love the use of the term "liberated". It sounds so happy.
Click to expand...


err, testing next to fuel storage????? WTFBBQ!
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Perspective on just how big those holes are. They are large.

d2fd7d77ac9543f606572cbfd63885de782876870cdc9a397d3f85a5d7faf4d85g.jpg
 
I

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
DivideBYZero said:
I'm well aware of that, but I quoted someone suggesting THE ENTIRE JOURNEY be completed with the failure, which is flat out wrong.

Learn to read, people.
Click to expand...

As I said, there was at least one case of a BA 747 losing an engine in flight and continuing on in its trip. There have been some comments on here about the pilot's "stunt" however he was never disciplined because what he did was perfectly legal. Of course that only applies to a simple engine failure, when the engine blows itself to bits it's a completely different story.
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The Qantas pilots had no choice in the matter. They could not have completed their trip even if they wanted to.

They had a destroyed engine, a hole in a the wing, including a hole in a wing fuel tank, and they had no control over a second engine, which had been disconnected by the damage. They also had hydraulic system damage and numerous faults showing on the system displays.

When FADEC jet engines on modern airliners lose their control signaling, they remain at the last commanded settings and they cannot be shut down at all. They will run at those settings until the fuel is exhausted or some other failure causes them to stop. When the A380 landed, they stopped that engine by drowning it with the fire hoses. It was still running at it's last commanded settings.
 
Last edited:
I

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
I'm aware of the fact that this plane could have never finished its trip. What I'm saying is that if the issue is a simple engine failure or a precautionary shutdown with no other issues then a four-engine airliner doesn't necessarily have to land immediately.
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
ichy said:
I'm aware of the fact that this plane could have never finished its trip. What I'm saying is that if the issue is a simple engine failure or a precautionary shutdown with no other issues then a four-engine airliner doesn't necessarily have to land immediately.
Click to expand...

IIRC, in the US it does. The FAA considered that BA747 crew in violation.
 
I

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
LTC8K6 said:
IIRC, in the US it does. The FAA considered that BA747 crew in violation.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was somewhat disputed.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l-reports-ba-747-3-engine-lax-man-flight.html

What they crew did was legal under British rules and dubious under American rules. The FAA originally wanted to impose a fine, but later dropped the issue.

Rules aside though, the incident led to enough bad PR that I doubt any airline will fly a four-engine airliner on three engines again.
 
Number1

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
LTC8K6 said:
The Qantas pilots had no choice in the matter. They could not have completed their trip even if they wanted to.

They had a destroyed engine, a hole in a the wing, including a hole in a wing fuel tank, and they had no control over a second engine, which had been disconnected by the damage. They also had hydraulic system damage and numerous faults showing on the system displays.

When FADEC jet engines on modern airliners lose their control signaling, they remain at the last commanded settings and they cannot be shut down at all. They will run at those settings until the fuel is exhausted or some other failure causes them to stop. When the A380 landed, they stopped that engine by drowning it with the fire hoses. It was still running at it's last commanded settings.
Click to expand...

They are lucky the flying parts did not puncture the cabin or that the punctured fuel tank did not ignite.
I find it strange they could not just cut the fuel supply to that outer engine to shut it off once on the ground...
I have seen footage of an engine getting flooded with water and it kept right on going so I would imagine you would need an ENORMOUS amount of water to shut it down.

They were a lot closer to a crash then I ever thought.
 
T

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
i can't believe it made it three pages deep before someone mentioned the Twilight Zone skit.
 
skyking

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,629
5,738
146
ichy said:
As I said, there was at least one case of a BA 747 losing an engine in flight and continuing on in its trip. There have been some comments on here about the pilot's "stunt" however he was never disciplined because what he did was perfectly legal. Of course that only applies to a simple engine failure, when the engine blows itself to bits it's a completely different story.
Click to expand...
Legal, yes. Not prudent in the least.
The plane could not operate at the flight plan altitude or airspeed. It did not make it to the destination.
In the airline business it is bad to not make your destination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom