Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turbojet engine failure prevention

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    But I also noticed that some"posts" have been deleted recently!
    That’s not funny, unfortunately.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Boeing Bobby: Doc tells me, "No salt" on my popcorn, but thanks anyway

      Gabriel: .See: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia This list includes over one hundred crashes and over one thousand fatalities caused by engine failures, PLUS many more which are listed as "Shorty After Takeoff." Which includes many more which are engine failures that might have been prevented by a device possibly in use by engine designers to protect their test cells.

      I was hoping to find someone who could contact at least one engine builder and find out if such a device as I designed was in use today and why it was not being used in-flight.

      I will continue with some notable instances, then I may pack it up as an unsuccessful attempt to find someone who can communicate with an engine builder for me. All attempts in the past have been unsuccessful. However, I must note that the Wikipedia list is NOT complete by a large margin. There are a number of commercial accidents missing. Many are inside countries, such as Russia and China, where crashes and loss of life is not uncommon. Many others are military Air Force of countries that do not report all their accidents. Many more include vertical aircraft, both private and military of many countries, including their rotor heads. All of which might be prevented by my device.


      June 20, 1965, Pan Am Flight 843, 707-321B, on take-off from San Francisco, the #4 engine had an uncontained failure, right outboard. The engine tore loose, but came back and tore off 25 feet of the right wing. The pilot was able to land safely. This failure convinced Larry Booda of Aviation Week to support my appearance before a Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Safety regarding my engine failure warning system.

      On 22nd August 1985, a British Airtours 737-200 suffered an uncontained engine failure during takeoff; which was promptly aborted. However, uncontained debris penetrated the center fuel tank causing a fire and explosion before all the passengers could be evacuated. Many died.

      July 19, 1989, United Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10, suffered an uncontained failure of the #2 engine mounted internally inside the tail section. Debris severed all three hydraulic lines, leading to a total loss of flight controls. The aircraft broke up during a landing attempt at SIOUX CITY airport, in a nearby corn field with many fatalities.

      December 29, 1991, China Air Flight 358, 747-200, engine #3 failed shortly after takeoff and ejected, but went to the right and tore off engine #4. The now unmanageable aircraft crashed, killing all the passengers and crew.

      October 4, 1992, El Al 1862, 747-200F, a freighter, engine #3 failed and ejected, but it then damaged #4 engine, which also failed, this while shortly after takeoff from the Amsterdam airport. The crippled aircraft crashed into nearby apartments, killing the crew and many residents.

      November 4, 2010, Qantus Flight 32, an Airbus Super Jumbo A380-852, with Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines, suffered an uncontained engine failure of engine #2, left inboard, shortly after takeoff over water. The debris damaged the nacelle, landing gear, flaps, braking system and ripped open two fuel tanks. A fire started near engine #1, left outboard, but burnt out before it could spread. The crippled aircraft continued to fly and returned to land safely, although it could have been much worse and killed 585 occupants.

      August 27, 2016, a Southwest Airlines’ Boeing 737-700, with GE CFM-56 engines experienced an uncontained engine failure in the left engine, during which the nacelle’s inlet was ripped off by a fan blade breaking loose and exiting the engine. A 5-inch by 16-inch hole was also found in the fuselage, just above the left wing. While pressurization of the cabin was lost, the aircraft landed safely with one engine.

      October 28, 2016, an American Airlines’ Boeing 767, with GE CF6 engines, was taking off from O’Hare Airport, when a cracked turbine disk was reportedly blamed for the uncontained material failure of the right engine. Debris tore open a fuel tank in the right wing, creating a major fire. One piece of a turbine disk was found over 3,300 feet away. While a Kevlar shield had been installed to try to prevent uncontained debris escaping from the forward fan section, the adjoining wing had little chance of not being penetrated.

      Fortunately, the pilot was able to abort the aircraft take-off, bringing the plane to a stop near the end of the runway, and everyone escaped relatively unharmed. Had the aircraft become airborne, all the occupants most likely would have died in the inevitable crash.

      Comment


      • #18
        My warning system was designed to prevent uncontained or contained engine failures or to identify any defective blades, buckets, disks or bearings that could be replaced during maintenance, NOT just the fan blades and disc, which are easily inspected. I'm trying to save lives and money. I was told by a participant in the Senate Hearing that such a device was now in use to protect test cells. I was also effectively prevented from continuing my research. Why I don't know. If you know, I would appreciate the knowledge.

        Letters to related aviation organizations and official agencies have been sent in the past when a major accident occurred, reminding them of the possibility that a device now apparently used in industry to protect test cells might be adapted to flying aircraft and save lives. Little or no response has been received.

        May 2017, I was told by someone that turbine engine failures were rare and it would not be cost effective to spend the money to adapt a test cell protection device to aircraft. Internet references reported then that turbine engine failures were around 25 per year.

        So I listed the commercial turbojet aircraft engine failures just for May 2017 as reported in public media. Then consider the fact that Russian and Chinese may not have listed all the engine failures inside their countries. Also consider the fact that the military air forces of all countries seldom report their failures. Then you have the vertical aircraft which might outnumber conventional military aircraft, wirh turbine engines and rotor blade hubs which can and do fail. Finally, the private and for hire smaller jets, which may outnumber commercial jets. These apparently fail less often, but are not immune.

        Frankly, I have no idea how many turbine engines might fail per year, but I still ask, “Why should any turbine powered aircraft suffer an uncontained or contained engine failure caused by a blade, bucket, disc or bearing failure when a test cell device now apparently in use might prevent them?''

        May 26, 2017: Skippers Aviation de Havilland Dash 8-300, registration VH-XKI performing a charter flight from Perth, WA to Leinster, WA (Australia) with 50 people on board, was climbing out of Perth's runway 21 when the crew stopped the climb at 3000 feet reporting a problem with an engine (PW123) which they shut down and returned to Perth for a safe landing on runway 21 about 22 minutes after departure. Contained engine failure.

        May 23, 2017: Volotea Boeing 717-200, registration EI-FGI performing flight V7-3269 Seville,SP to Santander,SP (Spain) with 83 people on board, was in the initial climb out of Seville's runway 09 when the left hand engine (BR715) emitted a series of bangs and streaks of flame prompting the crew to stop the climb at 2000 feet and shut the engine down. The aircraft returned to Seville for a safe landing on runway 09 about 23 minutes after departure. Contained engine failure.

        May 23, 2017: United flight # 1579, a Boeing 757 with 124 passengers and 7 crew members, was scheduled to leave at 9:22 p.m. While departing for San Francisco, flames were reported coming from an uncontained failure out the right side of the right-hand engine, prompting the temporary closure of the New Jersey airport. If the failure had occurred on the left side of the engine, debris might have impacted the fuselage and caused serious injury as well as a fuel tank fire might have resulted. Uncontained engine failure.

        May 23, 2017: British Airways G-EUXK, Airbus A-321, shA321 by Hawkeye UK (license CC by-sa) was rotating for takeoff from Basel's runway 15 when the right-hand engine (V2533) began to emit a series of bangs. Stop the climb at 5500 feet, shut the engine down and return to Basel. Contained engine failure.

        May 20, 2017: Norwegian Air Shuttle Boeing 787-800, registration LN-LND performing flight DY-7209 from Copenhagen (Denmark) to Bangkok (Thailand) with 212 people on board, was climbing out of Copenhagen's runway 22R when the crew stopped the climb at 6000 feet after the right-hand engine (Trent 1000) emitted two louds bangs, streaks of flames and caused two jolts. The crew shut the engine down, dumped fuel and returned to Copenhagen for a safe landing. Contained engine failure.

        May 19, 2017: Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQG performing flight from Los Angeles, CA (USA) to Melbourne, VI (Australia) with 480 people on board, was just step climbing from FL320 to FL340 about 800nm west-southwest of Los Angeles when the outboard right hand engine (Trent 972) emitted a bang and streaks of flames and sparks prompting the flight crew to shut the engine down. The aircraft returned to Los Angeles for a safe landing. Contained engine failure.

        May 18, 2017: Air Nelson de Havilland Dash 8-300 on behalf of ANZ Air New Zealand, registration ZK-NEF performing flight NZ-8736 from Blenheim to Wellington (New Zealand), was climbing out of Blenheim when the right-hand engine (PW123) emitted creaking sounds followed by the crew shutting the engine down. Contained engine failure.

        May 18, 2017: Delta Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration N816NW performing flight DL-71 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Atlanta, GA (USA), was climbing out of Amsterdam when the crew stopped the climb at FL240 due a problem with an engine, which they shut down and returned to Amsterdam for a safe landing on runway. Contained engine failure.

        May 17, 2017: A British Airways Airbus A320-200, registration G-EUUB performing flight BA-360 from London Heathrow, EN (UK) to Lyon (France), was climbing through FL240 when the right hand engine (V2527) stalled emitting a loud bang, subsequently failed and was shut down in flight. The aircraft returned to Heathrow Airport for a safe landing on runway. Contained engine failure.

        May 15, 2017: Egypt Air Airbus A330-200, registration SU-GCI performing flight MS-955 (scheduled dep May 14th, actual dep May 15th) from Cairo (Egypt) to Beijing (China) with 211 people on board, was accelerating for takeoff from Cairo's runway 05C when the crew rejected takeoff at about 60 knots over ground due to the failure of the left-hand engine (Trent 772). The engine failure had caused a large hole in the cowl at the engine inlet up to fan section of the left-hand engine. Uncontained engine failure.

        May 12, 2017: Severstal Canadair CRJ-200, registration RA-67230 performing flight D2-32 from Moscow Domodedovo to Kirovsk (Russia), was in the initial descent towards Kirovsk when the crew reported they had needed to shut an engine (CF34) down. The aircraft continued for a safe landing in Kirovsk about 30 minutes later. Contained engine failure.

        May 12, 2017: KLM Boeing 777-300, registration PH-BVK performing flight KL-896 from Shanghai Pudong (China) to Amsterdam (Netherlands) with 396 people on board, was enroute at 9200 meters (FL301) about 330nm north-northwest of Shanghai when the crew decided to descend the aircraft and return to Shanghai due to problems with an engine (GE90). The aircraft landed safely on Shanghai's runway 35L. The airline reported an external cause caused minor damage to an engine. Contained engine failure.

        May 12, 2017: ANA All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-900, registration JA871A performing flight NH-209 from Tokyo (Japan) to Dusseldorf (Germany), was enroute at FL380 about 260nm east-northeast of Bratsk (Russia) when the crew reported problems with the left-hand engine (Trent 1000), descended the aircraft to FL240 and diverted to Bratsk for a safe landing about 70 minutes later. The airline reported the oil quantity of the left-hand engine dropped and had to be shut down. Contained engine failure.

        May 10, 2017: Etihad Airbus A319-100, registration A6-EID performing flight EY-207 from Jaipur (India) to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) with 106 people on board, was climbing out of Jaipur when the crew stopped the climb at FL120 due to an engine (V2524) problem. The aircraft returned to Jaipur for a safe landing. The airline reported a technical issue with an engine. Contained engine failure.

        May 10, 2017 (delayed entry) April 29, 2017: LATAM Brasil Airbus A320-200, registration PR-MHG performing flight JJ-3392 from Sao Paulo Congonhas, SP to Brasilia, DF (Brazil), departed Congonhas' runway 17R but suffered an engine failure, leaving debris on the runway. The crew continued takeoff, climbed to about 7000 feet and diverted to Sao Paulo's Guarulhos Airport for a safe landing on runway 09R about 20 minutes after departure. Uncontained engine failure.

        May 5, 2017: An Etihad Airbus A330-200, registration A6-EYO performing flight EY-474 from Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) to Jakarta (Indonesia), was climbing out of Abu Dhabi's runway 31L when the left-hand engine (Trent 772) emitted a huge bang and streaks of flames prompting the crew to level off at 3000 feet, shut the engine down and return to Abu Dhabi for a safe landing on runway 31R about 25 minutes after departure. Contained engine failure.

        May 2, 2017: A KLM Boeing 777-300, registration PH-BVA performing flight KL-808 from Taipei (Taiwan) to Amsterdam (Netherlands), had just step climbed from 9200 (~FL300) to 9500 meters (~FL311) when the crew reported the failure of the right-hand engine (GE90). The crew decided to divert to Hong Kong, entered a hold at 9000 feet to dump fuel and landed safely on Hong Kong's runway 07R about 70 minutes after leaving 9500 meters. Contained engine failure.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by co80610 View Post
          May 2017, I was told by someone that turbine engine failures were rare and it would not be cost effective to spend the money to adapt a test cell protection device to aircraft. Internet references reported then that turbine engine failures were around 25 per year.
          So, one important question to ask is: what would be the expected ratio of actual detections to false detections from a system requiring precise calibration mounted on an engine prone to significant forces and vibrations operating in the harsh environmental conditions of flight.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by co80610 View Post
            I was told by a participant in the Senate Hearing that such a device was now in use to protect test cells. I was also effectively prevented from continuing my research. Why I don't know. If you know, I would appreciate the knowledge.
            You should probably ask LH 747-400, I am sure he has the answer for you!

            No salt! How about butter?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by co80610 View Post
              [Sizable postings]
              Gabriel’s reign endeth.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                My warning system was designed to prevent uncontained or contained engine failures or to identify any defective blades, buckets, disks or bearings that could be replaced during maintenance, NOT just the fan blades and disc, which are easily inspected. I'm trying to save lives and money.
                This might inspire you:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/business/airplanes-technology-data.html

                The amount of detailed data being provided by aircraft to maintenance is growing rapidly. It involves AI. The bandwidth now exists to provide more expansive engine parameters that might detect impending failures before they happen. Again, that's the goal, to catch them before the next dispatch. The sensor technology is also rapidly evolving, so I think that, if you want to save lives and money, you should rethink your idea using the new technologies of the current day.

                Comment


                • #23
                  BoeingBobby: Popcorn with butter would be great this snowy evening. Can't find LH 747-400, nearest ones are LH380 & LH764.

                  Evan: Good advice, good article, but, nearing 90, I may not have the time to learn new technologies. I will still try.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                    BoeingBobby: Popcorn with butter would be great this snowy evening. Can't find LH 747-400, nearest ones are LH380 & LH764.

                    Evan: Good advice, good article, but, nearing 90, I may not have the time to learn new technologies. I will still try.
                    Sorry, it's LH-B744. He has a plethora of knowledge of flight operations.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by co80610 View Post
                      Gabriel: .See: [SIZE=12px]List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia This list includes over one hundred crashes and over one thousand fatalities caused by engine failures,
                      Ok, that's it. This is my last post because it is totally worthless to waste any more time with you. I simply cannot believe a single word of whatever you might have to say because:
                      • In your very first paragraph of your first post you included 4 incorrect statements.
                      • When I challenged you with providing a list of some of the "to many others" where, as the result of an engine failure, "had a fuel tank ripped open, caught fire and crashed, killing all on board" that you mentioned, you direct me to a Wikipedia page that contains a generic list of all types of accidents, and you mention "This list includes over one hundred crashes and over one thousand fatalities caused by engine failures", list that includes piston airplanes, many Russian turboprop airplanes, God knows how many of the engine failures were caused by a blade/disk separation issue (probably most are not), and I could find exactly zero were such a blade separation ripped the fuel tank open killing everybody on board.
                      • Then you provide a list of airplane incidents and accidents, most of them non-fatal, which you classify either as contained (most of them) or uncontained (a few) engine failure, even when for many of them you don't mention the cause of the failure. Because, you see, contained / uncontained is a classification that applies to rotating parts of the engine separating, if parts pierce through the containment casing it is an uncontained engine failure, if the pieces don't pierce through the containment casing it is a contained engine failure. But if an engine fails because of a failure with the fuel pump, the fuel injector, the fuel metering valve, a bearing failure, an oil leak draining the oil below the minimum, an oil over temp, a blockage of airflow caused for example by a bird ingestion, etc... those are neither contained or uncontained engine failures and nothing that your device can do to prevent. Oh, and by the way, ALL these incidents you listed resultad in exactly zero deaths, let alone a fuel tank being ripped open and everybody dying in the ensuing explosion.

                      I have no idea about the merits of the device that you propose, but I trust exactly zero of anything you have to say because, so far, a lot of the factual information that you provided, that can be verified (or debunked), has proven to be false, inaccurate or misleading. Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf?

                      Welcome to my ignore list.

                      --- 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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                        Gabriel’s reign endeth.
                        Guess not!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf
                          I do! I do!!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: LH-B744, BoeingBobby recommended I contact you for any possible information regarding the use of a device that will detect a change of clearance between the blade or bucket tip and engine housing. I suggested the use of such a device in 1958 when I was working for the USAF on engine failures due to FOD. I noted that blades first rubbed the inside of the engine housing and suggested a simple rub point, like a spark plug opposite each row of blades/buckets, when grounded, might give a warning signal before a blade/bucket separated. I ended up in a hearing where I was told the device was in use with engine builders, to save their test cells. I asked and still ask "Why not use such a device in flight to warn pilots and save lives?" Over the years when there was one or more major engine failures, three last weekend of February, possibly caused by rotor component failure, I have tried GE, P&W, FAA, NTSB, Aviation Week, etc. No useful responses, except for insults..

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Dis gonna be really good!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                Dis gonna be really good!
                                Oh, Bobby, what have you started ?
                                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X