Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 7 Posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3007 times:
A Delta 767 narrowly escaped a catastrophe in Zurich last Friday. The Boeing 767 taxied for runway sixteen when someone in the control tower noticed that something was coming out of the right engine. The control tower then notified the pilot who found nothing uncommon. The aircraft was now on the runway when the tower ordered evacuation and the firefighters had foamed the runway. A big fuel leak in the engine was the cause. If the aircraft had taken off it would have exploded into a fireball.
This was a close call.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2574 times:
Has the NTSB/Swiss Federal investigators made any comment about this? Strange that if the problem was visible from the tower as the 767 was taxiing out, it wasn't picked up by the crew during the walk around?
Is there any idea of how it was caused? FOD? Ground collision? Surely the 767 is much too new to fall victim to fatigue?
HeavyJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
Seems like you've already figured it out before any of the aviation experts have answered. Where did you get this info...from the news media.
>>it would have exploded into a fireball.<<
It would have, huh?
Do you even know if it was fuel? Maybe it was hydraulic fluid or oil. If it was a fuel leak it might have only show up under pressure while the engine is running. This might explain why it wasn't picked up during the preflight, as Kaitak asked.
It's unlikely that a catastrophic explosion would have taken place as it's the fuel vapor that's explosive, not the fuel itself. There's too much airflow to allow vapors to accumulate and create an explosive situation.
Chances are, the crew would eventually notice a higher fuel flow from the engine or be alerted to a unbalanced fuel condition from the wing tanks. Following prescribed procedures, they would have probably shut the engine down and returned for an uneventful single engine landing.
But that wouldn't make good for a good news story....
Panman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2523 times:
I believe the most that would have happened in any case is that you would have had flames coming out of the jet pipe and not an explosion. For it to be an explosion there would need to be a path for the flame to reach to the fuel tank.
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2461 times:
There was on official press release and the interview was printed in a newspaper. But there has not yet been a press release regarding the cause. The aircraft lost three tons of kerosene on its way the runway.