Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 fan-blade / cowling failure over Denver

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    So did anyone consider a bird strike that weakened a blade that later failed??

    Comment


    • #47
      United widebody + uncontained engine failure = horrible memories
      777 + P&W engine trouble = nothing surprising
      ''It is highly speculated that the Il-76 was not chosen as the leading actor in The Transporter movies only because Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein were not okay with it being Russian, and the role eventually went to Jason Statham instead.''
      Fantastic Planes and How to Identify Them by Ahnaf Ahmed
      Link: https://books2read.com/FantasticPlanes

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
        So did anyone consider a bird strike that weakened a blade that later failed??
        The 2018 incident investigation identified metal fatigue. It came to light that these hollow-core blades were not being reliably inspected. This incident looks like a similar fracture. I expect that it will reveal the same issues. But we shall see...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

          Where the hell have you been Brian? You doing okay?
          I’m fine thanks Bobby. I’m no longer involved with JP as an official crew member and I haven’t taken any aviation pictures for well over a year now mostly due to Covid restrictions. I’m 72 years old this May, I’ve had the first of my two Pfizer Covid vaccination shots in February with the second due early April. Lockdown means that I now know that there are 968 Fleur de lys patterns on the wallpaper facing my sitting room chair.
          To keep my mind active I have taken up making plastic model aircraft and have built up quite a collection of WW2 prop aircraft and Cold War jets.
          here’s a few examples.
          Attached Files
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #50
            .....And some more models. Unfortunately I can only upload a maximum of 5 images per post.
            Attached Files
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • #51
              Just curious. Who would have to pay damages in these incidents if some court decided it was necessary. Is it the engine manufacturer, the airline, the people who overlooked the weakening? Or is this one of these cases where in the end, really no one is accountable. Clearly Boeing was with 737 MAX, but this group of incidents had more than one party involved.

              Comment


              • #52
                [Disclaimer: Not an expert in Law by any means]

                In these cases for damages (civil law, not penal law) "accountable" or "guilty" doesn't carry so much weight, the question is "who is liable".
                The airline would be liable. The insurance would have to cover for that, and possibly sue PW (owner of the type certificate for the engine) and Boeing (owner for the type certificate of the plane including the engine cowling) to recover those damages.

                Although the person making the claim would likely go ahead and sue United, PW, Boeing, and the FAA at the same time.

                But I am sure tee vee will chime in and correct me (no chance that I got it right).

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #53
                  This was published recently. An interview with the 2018 UA pilot. Fascinating interview.
                  P&W Fan Blade Out Event from Feb 2018 SFO-HNLB-777 200 P&W 4077 EngineLINKS:Capt Behnam Pagehttps://www.captainbehnam.com/bio/4 minutes video in English http...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    [Disclaimer: Not an expert in Law by any means]

                    Although the person making the claim would likely go ahead and sue United, PW, Boeing, and the FAA at the same time.
                    United, pw, Boeing, I understand, but why the Faa?
                    ''It is highly speculated that the Il-76 was not chosen as the leading actor in The Transporter movies only because Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein were not okay with it being Russian, and the role eventually went to Jason Statham instead.''
                    Fantastic Planes and How to Identify Them by Ahnaf Ahmed
                    Link: https://books2read.com/FantasticPlanes

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Winglet_Flanker View Post

                      United, pw, Boeing, I understand, but why the Faa?
                      The FAA became aware of the fan blade inspection problem in 2018. They issued an AD with lengthy compliance times. This allowed potentially affected planes to remain in service. Since the more recent event, they've altered this to an emergency AD with compliance before further flight. They should have done this in the first place. A condition with potential for uncontained engine failure and/or structural failure must not be tolerated, particularly in ETOP's aircraft. It must result in an immediate grounding until AD requirements are met. If the recent event is found to be related to the same fan blade inspection issue, I would think they could potentially be culpable for the damage that occurred.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        highly unlikely that anyone will name the FAA. and while I'm not saying some entrepreneurial (read, money hungry) lawyer wont file suit in this case, the damages will be extremely hard to prove. who, aside from united, was hurt here? maybe some kind of horseshit claim for emotional distress, but nothing of substance.

                        United likely has a good case against PW, but is suspect those claims will be settled quietly without a lawsuit being filed. i've been wrong before though....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          highly unlikely that anyone will name the FAA. and while I'm not saying some entrepreneurial (read, money hungry) lawyer wont file suit in this case, the damages will be extremely hard to prove. who, aside from united, was hurt here? maybe some kind of horseshit claim for emotional distress, but nothing of substance.

                          United likely has a good case against PW, but is suspect those claims will be settled quietly without a lawsuit being filed. i've been wrong before though....
                          I took it as a hypothetical question.... IF someone actually had resulted damaged (hurt, property damage, etc...), who would they sue?

                          Why the FAA?
                          - The FAA defines the design and certification criteria.
                          - The FAA approves the certification and provides the type certificate both for the engine and for the airplane (separately).
                          - The FAA allows for certification testing to be carried out with a non-production-conforming inlet lip and no cowling (something that probably was critical for not detecting the self-destructiveness of the otherwise happily-contained blade failure, as well described by the NTSB's report of the 2018 incident).
                          - The FAA approved and certified this engine type with all the caveats mentioned above.
                          - The FAA knew of this exact issue since 2018 (first incident) and didn't take decisive measures to mitigate the risks, fix the problem, and protect the flying public and those on the ground.
                          - There was a repeat in December 2020 (JAL) and the FAA still didn't take decisive action.
                          - It took a 3rd incident, United grounding its fleet of the airframe/engine combo, Japan grounding the fleet in Japan (2 airlines) and forbidding other operators to flay over Japan with the combo, and Boeing recommending all operators to ground the fleet, for the FAA to take decisive action (which is just mandatory inspection before further flight).

                          To the layman (like me for legal matters), given that the FAA is responsible for establishing and enforcing the rules for a safe aviation, the points described above sound like different levels of negligence.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            ok, maybe i wasn't clear enough. i think, and i havent done any exhaustive research on the matter, that aviation incident/accident lawsuits against the FAA are few and far between. even money-hungry lawyers try to avoid suing the US government. yes there are 1000's of cases against the US, but there are millions of cases against private entities.

                            so here, imo, united could possibly have a claim against the FAA for the loss of the engine and associated expenses. maybe. but likely not. it is not an area of law i am well versed in.

                            here is a fairly well written article that puts it all into layman's terms: https://thepointsguy.com/news/why-it...r-the-737-max/

                            for those that dont wanna read the whole thing, here is a poignant excerpt

                            "At the end of a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, a Varig Boeing 707 made an emergency landing in a field as it approached Orly airport. A cigarette had burned through the lavatory trash can and black smoke was billowing through the passenger cabin, asphyxiating many passengers before the airplane was even on the ground. 123 people died. Varig sued the FAA because, by law, the trash bin should have contained the fire. The FAA certified the jetliner even though the airplane failed to meet that requirement.

                            When the Supreme Court heard the case, all nine justices agreed that the burden falls on the regulated, in this case Boeing, to follow the law. When the FAA decides what it will and will not inspect, it is “exercising discretionary regulatory authority of the most basic kind,” the high court ruled."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              ok, maybe i wasn't clear enough. i think, and i havent done any exhaustive research on the matter, that aviation incident/accident lawsuits against the FAA are few and far between. even money-hungry lawyers try to avoid suing the US government. yes there are 1000's of cases against the US, but there are millions of cases against private entities.

                              so here, imo, united could possibly have a claim against the FAA for the loss of the engine and associated expenses. maybe. but likely not. it is not an area of law i am well versed in.

                              here is a fairly well written article that puts it all into layman's terms: https://thepointsguy.com/news/why-it...r-the-737-max/

                              for those that dont wanna read the whole thing, here is a poignant excerpt

                              "At the end of a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, a Varig Boeing 707 made an emergency landing in a field as it approached Orly airport. A cigarette had burned through the lavatory trash can and black smoke was billowing through the passenger cabin, asphyxiating many passengers before the airplane was even on the ground. 123 people died. Varig sued the FAA because, by law, the trash bin should have contained the fire. The FAA certified the jetliner even though the airplane failed to meet that requirement.

                              When the Supreme Court heard the case, all nine justices agreed that the burden falls on the regulated, in this case Boeing, to follow the law. When the FAA decides what it will and will not inspect, it is “exercising discretionary regulatory authority of the most basic kind,” the high court ruled."
                              This is a very different scenario. The FAA clearly knew about the causative aspects of this incident because a) they were informed from the NTSB in a formal report from a prior incident and b) they issued an AD that called attention to the issues and required compliance measures. The fault was in the compliance terms being recklessly lenient. If an airliner has the hightened potential for uncontained engine failure and subsequent structural failure, you don't give it 1000 more cycles to do something about that. You must ground it immediately until PROPER inspections can be carried out.

                              Especially with ETOPS. ETOPS is a privilege that comes with proven reliability. It must be earned. Without that reliability, it must be taken away.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post

                                This is a very different scenario. The FAA clearly knew about the causative aspects of this incident because a) they were informed from the NTSB in a formal report from a prior incident and b) they issued an AD that called attention to the issues and required compliance measures. The fault was in the compliance terms being recklessly lenient. If an airliner has the hightened potential for uncontained engine failure and subsequent structural failure, you don't give it 1000 more cycles to do something about that. You must ground it immediately until PROPER inspections can be carried out.

                                Especially with ETOPS. ETOPS is a privilege that comes with proven reliability. It must be earned. Without that reliability, it must be taken away.
                                ok smart guy, go file the lawsuit. you can file it as "Evan, the concerned aviation enthusiast extraordinaire, Plaintiff"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X