Catastrophic 777 engine failure in EWR

…….
He probably also thinks the Air Transat crew were heroes. And the Air Canada glider crew. And the Delta crew that shut down both engines. And the Southwest crew that was flying around naked.

Next, he will probably start quoting the leadership principles he learned “at the academy.”

Never before or since? How bout the successful flight test program where Douglas flew an MD-11 using engine power alone controlled by autopilot inputs for just such an eventuality? True, it was only a flight test program, but doesn’t that qualify as “since?”

The other incidents you cite are totaly different situations, completely and utterly different, aside from the fact they feature aircraft in dire distress. Neither of them had damaged controls and all three were crew error, either by the pilots or ground crew.
You’re taking an apple and comparing it to an orange. This shows the utter ignorance in your posts.

The MD-11 flight test you cite was conducted with a special software and control program that allowed the flight crew to fly the plane using thrust only. It was a highly controlled test with all sorts of backups in place. (whats more it was years after the incident with all sorts of Data used from the accident to make the software possible)

The crew of United 232 had NO such luxury. They invented a new way to fly the DC-10, literally on the wing. They had not computers with data to fall back on, no one on the ground talking to them about what to do. Nothing. (ok they were talking to United mechanics, but they too were utterly helpless)

You cannot compare these actualy crash and a flight test of new software 20 years later. They’re as different as can be. One was controlled, the other was a never before encountered emergency situation. In trying to compare them, you yet again show ignorance.

WD is a pilot and he defends a pilot. Bias?

He defends the pilot in question by responding with personal insults.

He does not address the disagreement on the voice recorder about whether the wing engine throttle should be advanced or retarded just prior to impact.

ALPA has always fought the voice recorder (check the record) for this very reason. They don’t want anyone to know what the really did or didn’t do. Please try to refute this assertion with something more substantial than personal insults, “your momma wears combat boots….”

My only response was with personal insults? The closest came to that was with my closing statement (You sir are an idiot) so I guess you didn’t bother to read the previous paragraphs.

Here’s the transcript from the CVR, please quote where the “disagreement” on the flight deck took place as well as the negative chain of events that resulted from that “disagreement”.

http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ua232.pdf

He probably also thinks the Air Transat crew were heroes. And the Air Canada glider crew. And the Delta crew that shut down both engines. And the Southwest crew that was flying around naked.

Is that all you have, a bunch of assumptions? Feel free to quote me instead.

Next, he will probably start quoting the leadership principles he learned “at the academy.”

What academy did I go to? There are so many things I don’t even know about myself I guess.

Never before or since? How bout the successful flight test program where Douglas flew an MD-11 using engine power alone controlled by autopilot inputs for just such an eventuality? True, it was only a flight test program, but doesn’t that qualify as “since?”

No. If you had ever researched the United accident you would know that the autopilot would not engage after the hydraulic failure even though the Douglas procedures stated that it would in such an emergency. So again, No. No flight crew has been in such a situation before or since. My guess would be that the MD-11 demonstration was an attempt to show that Douglas had fixed the problems/designs of the DC-10 that had led to the Sioux City crash.

WD is a pilot and he defends a pilot. Bias?

He defends the pilot in question by responding with personal insults.

He does not address the disagreement on the voice recorder about whether the wing engine throttle should be advanced or retarded just prior to impact.

ALPA has always fought the voice recorder (check the record) for this very reason. They don’t want anyone to know what the really did or didn’t do. Please try to refute this assertion with something more substantial than personal insults, “your momma wears combat boots….”

He probably also thinks the Air Transat crew were heroes. And the Air Canada glider crew. And the Delta crew that shut down both engines. And the Southwest crew that was flying around naked.

Next, he will probably start quoting the leadership principles he learned “at the academy.”

Never before or since? How bout the successful flight test program where Douglas flew an MD-11 using engine power alone controlled by autopilot inputs for just such an eventuality? True, it was only a flight test program, but doesn’t that qualify as “since?”

I agree with Bill. (That is your name WD, right?). Ship 741 is out of order.

I watched a documentary that focused solely on the Sioux City DC-10 crash landing. There were extensive interviews with the crew. Capt Al Haines was very humble and could not speak enough praise for his crew that day, including jump seater Danny Finch who he attributed to being a god send.

But it was Al Haine’s calm and collective manner in which he dealt with the situation that let him and his crew bring that bird down in a survivable manner.

As WD touched upon, many flight crews were asked to try the same thing in simulators around America after the incident.
The Documentary I watched, and many of the written sources I have read about this incident and its ramifications all mentioned that 9 out of 10 crews got no where near Sioux City and ended making their simulated planes lawn darts in fields and towns with no survivability. No crews got to Sioux City. A few managed to crash land their planes with questionable survivability.

Al Haines his however extremely saddened that he lost people. Something he said he will take to his grave and never fogive himself for.

That in itself makes him a hero. He brought half his passengers and crew back down to earth alive and achieved an amazing feat of airmanship and command, yet spends more time thanking others for it. That alone qualifies him for the Hero title and he and his crew richly deserve all the credit they got and the respect they continue to get.

My second thought was the utterly ridiculous hero worship for Al Haines for doing what anyone would have done. There was no mention in the aviation press of the disagreement on the voice recorder between him and the jumpseater about which way the throttles should be jockyed just prior to impact…..who was right? Doesn’t matter since the public needs that comfy feeling that the pilots are “in control.”

Obviously your simplification of what actually happened in that cockpit as well as the actions of Al Haines has given you one of the most jaded and ridiculous attitudes I’ve ever heard by anyone of that event. He did what anyone else would have done? Well since we have never before or since seen any pilot put in such a situation like that your statement is comes across as an attempt of being inflammatory than actually a reflection on his actions or what we could expect from anyone in his situation.

Some seem to come to the conclusion that the calm demeanor or apparent ease of command in such situations as a sign of easiness or for others to be able to duplicate or exceed their outcome. What you are blind to is the years of experience and his ability to lead that made the situation appear so reproducible by others as you believe.

United Airlines recreated the system failures those 4 crew members were up against in a DC-10 simulator in Denver soon after the accident and few if anyone who attempted the flight lived. Rather odd considering that you feel anyone could have done the same.

Yes, Al Haines got the lions share of the accolades after the accident but it was his command that got them there. But if you’ve ever seen him talk about the events that day he continually praises the actions of his other crew members (both in the cockpit and in the back) as well as every person who responded on the ground. It was the combined skill of himself, his FO, FE and the DC-10 instructor who joined them on the jumpseat that won that day. He knows his place among the heroes that day.

You sir, are an idiot. I guess you spent too many hours sniffing fumes in the L-1011 wing all those years ago.

Airbus aircraft do not have dry bays in the wing. The fuel tank boundaries are arranged such that no uncontained failure can pierce more than one tank. Interestingly the GenX engine has much higher loads from a fan blade off event than the equivalent rr engine – this is due to the 3 spool design and the fewer number of fan blades. This means that, along with the containment casing the system is doubly redundant (at least).

Ship 741 wins the memory award of the day…

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR82-05.pdf

William

Thanks, William, for posting that. I’m kind of an L1011 afficianiado, I used to be a mechanic at a major U. S. airline and spent the first 6 weeks of my career inside the left wing of…..Ship 741, the last long fuselage L1011 ever built.

I’ve got some post incident pictures at home in a file somewhere that are pretty interesting…..engine parts in the aft lavs……a guy standing on the horiz stab inside the tail with various damage all around…i seem to remember a gaping hole in the s duct.

My first thought after the Sioux City incident was how senseless the wreck was….its one thing to say an L1011 would have survived a similar incident, its another when an L1011 actually has survived such an incident.

My second thought was the utterly ridiculous hero worship for Al Haines for doing what anyone would have done. There was no mention in the aviation press of the disagreement on the voice recorder between him and the jumpseater about which way the throttles should be jockyed just prior to impact…..who was right? Doesn’t matter since the public needs that comfy feeling that the pilots are “in control.”

The whole topic of engine failures is fascinating. You end up getting into all kinds of scenarios and discussions. Of course ETOPS gets mentioned at some point, and that is another fascinating discussion. For the record, I will publicly state that I believe the BA Captain departing LAX mad the WRONG decision last year, but that is another topic in itself and has probably been beat to death by posters here already.

One last little memory tickler. Didn’t CAL put a 777 into Midway Island about 18 months ago with an engine failure? Given the small number of 777s that CAL has, and the great reliability of the Trent, they’ve been pretty unlucky.

Joe

Ship 741 wins the memory award of the day…

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR82-05.pdf

William

And the UAL DC-10 crash at Souix City following the rupture of hydraulic lines.

True enough. That accident should never have been allowed to happen, in light of the fact that the FAA is a “tombstone” agency and should have mandated the containment ring after the ONA accident.

At the very least, they could have insisted upon hydraulic fuses, like the L1011 had in C system. In fact, an Eastern L1011 threw a fan (in the late 70’s, I believe, after the ONA accident but before Sioux City) and the airplane was recovered successfully with no injuries. Can’t remember the reason the fan came out of the RB211, may have been lack of lubrication to a bearing?

IIRC, GE learned about this the hard way when ONA lost a DC-10 due to an uncontained CF06 failure in the early 70s.

And the UAL DC-10 crash at Souix City following the rupture of hydraulic lines.

He probably can’t be fired because he probably has tenure….imho a classic case of good intentions gone wrong…intended to allow academic freedom but perverted to allow individuals to avoid responsibility for anything they say or do.

I think the Kevlar/composite containment ring around the fan case is part of the engine design, ie., an engine manufacturer design/part, not a Boeing design feature. I don’t intend to imply that this insulates Boeing from the inevitable lawsuits, only trying to clear up the discussion above about where the protection is for such a scenario. IIRC, GE learned about this the hard way when ONA lost a DC-10 due to an uncontained CF06 failure in the early 70s.

Per FAA “…. ABORTED TAKEOFF
DUE TO A CONTAINED RIGHT ENGINE FAILURE,…”

The guy from Embry-Riddle’s quote, it looks like the media was looking for an “instant expert” who gave long distance quotes without knowing the facts.
I’d like to think someone in his position would know better than to speculate about an incident he has NO firsthand knowledge about.
Hope his boss notices. He should be fired.

Makes good sensational headines…and posts…for people who don’t read the daily FAA accident/incident page.

It would appear the parts found on the runway exited via the exhaust end of the Engine, thus it is not an uncontained failure.
Heres the FFA report on the matter:

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 78017 Make/Model: B777 Description: B-777
Date: 03/20/2007 Time: 2053

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: NEWARK State: NJ Country: US

DESCRIPTION
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, N78017, COA84, A BOEING B777 ACFT, ABORTED TAKEOFF
DUE TO A CONTAINED RIGHT ENGINE FAILURE, NO INJURIES REPORTED, ACFT TOWED
TO THE RAMP WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT, NEWARK, NJ

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Take-off Operation: Air Carrier

Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: TETERBORO, NJ (EA25) Entry date: 03/21/2007

I hope Boeing dont get any bad press from this. It is down to the engine manufacturer/maintenance company to provide a safe, airworthy engine. The aircraft manufacturer is the one who contains any ‘offs’ and shields the aircraft.

Anyway, glad there was no serious incident.

Boeing get sued by someone for nigh on every incident involving a Boeing aircraft.
Even if the Pilot commits suicide and nosedives his 737 into the ground, Boeing get sued because perhaps the Aircraft could have been designed to prevent that.
Boeing have a stockpile of cash reserved for this sort of thing and naturaly contest all the cases.

I won’t be surprised to hear from some gold digging pax on this flight suing Boeing, GE and Continental for damages relating to stress and shock. Its America.

Hear is a link to a picture of the MAS one going POP.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1134244&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20777-2U6%2FRE&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Znynlfvn%20Nveyvarf&QtODMg=Fgbpxubyz%20-%20Neynaqn%20%28NEA%20%2F%20RFFN%29&ERDLTkt=Fjrqra&ktODMp=Abirzore%203%2C%202006&BP=1&WNEb25u=Serqevx%20Tenaoret&xsIERvdWdsY=9Z-ZEV&MgTUQtODMgKE=Nobhg%2010%20frpbaqf%20nsgre%20yvsgbss%20sebz%20ehajnl%2019E%20fbzrguvat%20unccraf%20jvgu%20gur%20yrsg%20ratvar.%20Nybg%20bs%20fzbxr%20naq%20sentzragf%20bs%20zrgny%20naq%20bgure%20zngrevny%20snyyf%20qbja%20ba%20gur%20ehajnl.%20Ng%20svefg%20gur%20cvybgf%20qba%27g%20trg%20nal%20vaqvpngvbaf%20va%20gur%20pbpxcvg%20naq%20cyna%20gb%20tb%20ba%20gb%20Xhnyn%20Yhzche.%20Gura%20jr%20qrpvqr%20gb%20pnyy%20Neynaqn%20qhgl%20bssvpre%20gb%20znxr%20fher%20gung%20gurl%20unir%20abgvprq%20gur%20cvrprf%20sebz%20gur%20ratvar%20ba%20gur%20ehajnl.%20Fubegyl%20nsgre%20gung%20gur%20cvybgf%20erdhrfgf%20shryqhzc%20naq%20erghea%20gb%20NEA%20fnsryl.%20%5BAvxba%20Q70%2C%20Avxxbe%2080-200%20s2.8%5D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=388762&NEb25uZWxs=2006-11-05&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=28416%2F155&static=yes&width=1280&height=865&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20YVXR%20%27Obrvat%20777%25%27%29%20NAQ%20%28nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27Znynlfvn%20Nveyvarf%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27YBG%20-%20Cbyvfu%20Nveyvarf%20%2F%20Cbyfxvr%20Yvavr%20Ybgavpmr%20%28Znynlfvn%20Nveyvarf%29%25%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=0632272&tbl=ACCIDENT

Rgds Cking

I hope Boeing dont get any bad press from this. It is down to the engine manufacturer/maintenance company to provide a safe, airworthy engine. The aircraft manufacturer is the one who contains any ‘offs’ and shields the aircraft.

Anyway, glad there was no serious incident.

I don’t think that the MAS one was un contained.
Un contained engine failurs are quite rare. The engine cases on ALL of the big fans are designed to absorbe a high energy rotor burst. The wings on a lot of airliners have areas where they THINK the turbine disc will if go it gets loose. These are kept clear of fuel and are called “Dry bays”
So the “shielding” that the “expert” mentioned is not just on the 777!
Some times though the discs will get out, as happened to an AA 767 in LAX recently.
The Manchester disaster was not caused by a disc failure but by a failure of part of the combution chamber.

Rgds Cking

Didn’t a Malaysian 777 went through a similar thing?

Glad it all ended with all souls safe and sound