So did anyone consider a bird strike that weakened a blade that later failed??
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
777 fan-blade / cowling failure over Denver
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by kent olsen View PostSo did anyone consider a bird strike that weakened a blade that later failed??
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
Where the hell have you been Brian? You doing okay?
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.
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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
-
[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
-
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.''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
-
Originally posted by Winglet_Flanker View Post
United, pw, Boeing, I understand, but why the Faa?
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Posthighly 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....
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postok, 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."
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
-
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.
Comment
Comment