Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
717 Engine Blows Up Inflight  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16234 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

A Jetstar 717s engine blew up inflight on friday night and caused the 717 to plunge 1200m. The JQ 717 was flying from Launceston to MEL. The flight was halfway to MEL when the engine blew up. The JQ pilot is now in the firing line from Australian Safety Authorities because he continued to MEL which has a 24 hour Fire and Rescue centre. The JQ flight issued a 'mayday' distress call. JQ is standing by the pilots choice.

SOURCE: http://www.ozflight.com.au

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16107 times:

I am not familiar with the geography and whether or not there were other airports in between they could have diverted to, but did they simply expect him to stop, hit the reset key, and continue on as normal?

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16073 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

There could have been other airport in the area, but MEL was the best option because of its bigger crash rescue resources.

User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15999 times:

Almost all airlines will leave the choice of what airport to divert to in the case of an emergency in the hands of the flight crew. Sure the NTSB and other agency's can flip a bitch about choices after accidents but the fact of the matter is that unless they were up there dealing with the wx conditions, stress, restrictions, location, etc. they have no real place to stand on the issue. Incidents like that of the BA 744 that flew LAX-LHR on one engine and ended up diverting due to head winds and slower than expected speeds at lower alt. are examples of when this idea can get a bit touchy.

Regarding this incident, I feel that the crew did a great job. You can't question the crew's choice if the outcome is positive (safe with as little damage as possible) and as long as the pilot didn't break any "Set In Stone" rules such as the distance allowed with only one engine with that a/c and other restrictions that would require an immediate divert.

I say way to go crew,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15935 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 1):
I am not familiar with the geography and whether or not there were other airports in between they could have diverted to, but did they simply expect him to stop, hit the reset key, and continue on as normal?

I wasn't either, but looking at maps on the net, if we're talking about Launceston in Tasmania, there doesn't appear to be anything between there and MEL but water...

I don't know what the Aussie reg is, but if it's anything at all like the US FAR 121.565, an engine failure on a twin necessitates landing at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. One article says they were at top-of-climb, and another says they were about halfway, and assuming a similar reg down there, countinuing to MEL doesn't sound all that unreasonable....


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15916 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 3):
Regarding this incident, I feel that the crew did a great job. You can't question the crew's choice if the outcome is positive

Considering MEL was the best and safest option. Maybe the Australian Safety Authority need to grow up over this incident and accept the pilot made the best choice in considering the engine blew up and MEL was the closest and safest option because of 24 hour crash rescue units. The depature airport doesn't have a 24 hour crash unit.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15881 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
if we're talking about Launceston in Tasmania,

Yes that was the airport

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
doesn't appear to be anything between there and MEL but water...

Unless there is a secret water airport that we don't know about Yeah sure


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15881 times:

Hmm I wonder what "engine blew up" or "explosion" really means? Engines just don't go out and explode very often, especially at cruising altitude so is this over exageration of the facts, or was this an uncontained catastrophic failure?. Does anyone know what happened? If it was a bad explosion then it could have seriously damaged the 717 which has the engines placed on the fuselage and right next to the tail. Something could have happened to cripple the plane other then just a typical engine shut down, if this was in fact a catastrophic failure. I am curious to know.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15855 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 6):
Unless there is a secret water airport that we don't know about

Maybe the USS Shangra-La; you know, the aircraft carrier that FDR said the B-25s took off from back in WWII...  Wink


How far is Tasmania off the coast?


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12845 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First, I'm VERY happy to not hear about casualties. Very happy on that.

I'm surprised with this, the BMW715's have a good safety reputation. Now, they are known to need a bit more "hands on" attention than say a CFM-56, but their safety has been excellent.

Any news links?

I agree, it sounds like MEL was the safest option. The pilot would know if they need to be on the ground NOW or if its better to get to a crash crew.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15800 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
Any news links?

Yes, I read it on http://www.ozflight.com.au Headline is: Airliner Backs Captain Of Stricken 717


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15797 times:

Those darn RR engines...what can you do...

Seriously though, I'm glad everyone was ok, and the 717 engines have a pretty good record as it is.


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1455 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15561 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 5):
The depature airport doesn't have a 24 hour crash unit.

Have they no ability to recall the crash crew in the event of an emergency? I would think this works like normal firefighting work. You may not be at the station house, but you could get called.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15503 times:

Apparently the engine had one or more fan blades break/disentergrate then the bits went thru the turbine, thereby creating a bit of a mess!

It was reportedly the fifth such failure, world wide, in the last 12 months. It is supposedly undetectable until it lets go.


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12845 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 13):
Apparently the engine had one or more fan blades break/disentergrate then the bits went thru the turbine, thereby creating a bit of a mess!

Wow! and to think in another tread the blade-out test was called a waste of an engine.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 13):

It was reportedly the fifth such failure, world wide, in the last 12 months. It is supposedly undetectable until it lets go.

Interesting... there are notch criteria on fan blades... Do you have a source on the engines that had such failures? Normally the blades are x-rayed at service intervals or initial manufacture... If there is this high of a failure rate, the root cause MUST be found and eliminated. I'm all for acceptable risk, but fan blades failing create a lot of engine damage!

ANY more links are appreciated!

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15286 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 12):
Have they no ability to recall the crash crew in the event of an emergency? I would think this works like normal firefighting work. You may not be at the station house, but you could get called.

Yes, thats what the Australian Safety Authorities said should have happened, instead of contining to MEL


User currently offlineAA717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15267 times:

These engines are so new, I doubt they have been pulled off and totally disassembled.

Again, the press--"plunged". Oh, forget it...

It was emphasized in my training that the nearest suitable airport in point of time may not be the closest. If you can continue in your present direction, it may take less time to get on the ground than turning around to land at the closer airport.

AND... A 10,000' runway 50 miles away is more suitable than a 5,000' one 10 miles away.

TC
2,000+ hours happily operating the BR715/710! Big grin



FL450, M.85
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6862 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15131 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 9):
the BMW715's have a good safety reputation

Wow! "BMW715"?! You're going to ruin someone's weekend at RR Deutschland if they read that!  Wink (As I'm sure you know, it's the BR715 and BMW sold their stake to RR years ago.)


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15090 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
"BMW715"?!

It gives it a nicer name....BMW engines


User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15088 times:

I think someone is blowing this way out of proportion... AirTran has had some engine failures, where there was a loud boom, and the engine quit... The engine was simply replaced... Did this engine actually blow up leaving holes in the cowling, or was this just another "failure". Lets get some facts straight here...

BMW715... I think I'm going to have a heart attack. If anything, it should now be called RR715


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14738 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 19):
BMW715

Break My Windows 715  laughing 


User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2224 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Distance seems to be about 280 miles. At that TOC would probably have been possibly less than 100 mile from TO rendering Launceston 80 closer. I have no idea what time this flight departed and whether that played a factor on availability of a fire/rescue facilities but a guess would be that runway length played a much larger role than mentioned. Crew would be concerned about hydraulics availability for control, reversers, and brakes. Decisions about any possible leakage would be made after any emergency descent (if it was ever made) was recovered from. All this time he presumably is going in a straight line. This would put them very, very, near the halfway point which would make the longer runway the deciding factor. If it was any concern at all the field elevation at Launceston may very slightly have come into play. A lot surmising on my part here so don't jump too high


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14366 times:

My spy assures me the ATSB is not wound up about this.

It is apparently concerned about problems with the engine world wide, but the decision to continue to Melbourne from top of climb was perfectly proper and indeed the best option under the circumstances.


User currently offlineHaj96 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12889 times:

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 3):
Incidents like that of the BA 744 that flew LAX-LHR on one engine and ended up diverting due to head winds and slower than expected speeds at lower alt. are examples of when this idea can get a bit touchy.

 Wow!
When did this happen??? I guess you meant it flew with one engine out, right? Big grin

Regards,
haj96


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12394 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 2):
There could have been other airport in the area, but MEL was the best option because of its bigger crash rescue resources.

This is very dangerous thinking and should be avoided. When an aircraft is in real trouble it should land asap at any airport.

Thinking that "other airport has better rescue services" caused a crash of LOT IL-62M in 80s. They could have landed at few airports but decided to return to Warsaw for better rescue services. They crashed 5 miles before the airport and no rescue services were needed as no one survived.


25 Rootsgirl : I flew Friday night...we were cruising at 38,000 ft, suddenly out of the corner of my eye, I saw sparks which looked like firworks outside ( it was da
26 UA777222 : So sorry about getting my facts wrong on that one. Yes I will stand corrected in that it flew with one out. Thanks for cacthing that one, Matt
27 Antares : If anyone had half a brain they'd look up Launceston-Melbourne, its not hard, its in a thing called an A-T-L-A-S and see that with a short block time
28 Post contains images Bucchinij : Well, I guess he might have been able to go on if the 717 is ETOPS rated (if it isn't). After all, that's why they created ETOPS, for twins that are a
29 Post contains images Lightsaber : Ok, mea culpa! BR715! :P Yes, I'm well aware of the deal. Its when one of my better boss' returned to Pratt from BMW aerospace. Oh, as a BMW car owne
30 Antares : Bucchinij, I find the notion of a 717 with a full load of passengers of 125 passengers and baggage able to actually fly for 207 minutes amusing. Antar
31 777ER : Why don't you tell the JQ pilot that
32 Post contains links Bucchinij : Antares, True, it doesn't make much sense for a 207 minute (or even the planned 330 minute for the 777-300ER) ETOPS rating for an aircraft that doesn'
33 Antares : Buccinij, What's your point. The completion of the Launceston-Melbourne flight on one engine was well inside 60 minutes single engine speed from any a
34 Bucchinij : Antares, My point is that the pilot made a good decision to continue the flight to Melbourne, and not divert to a closer airport. I think that the aut
35 Antares : Buccinij, I know you must find this tiresome but are you familiar with the geography of Australia? Melbourne was the closest airport with on duty serv
36 Post contains images N766UA : Great news for me... I'm flying a 717 tomorrow!
37 QantasHeavy : Gotta love the Tasi readiness "we could have handled any emrgency, uh, we'd just have to call the fire rescue guys back from their homes/local pubs 'c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
MH 777 Engine Blows Up In Perth posted Thu Sep 21 2000 09:59:11 by Tim
Lion Air MD80 Blows Up Engine posted Sat Oct 14 2006 10:44:42 by Mandala499
Engine Start-up Noises/video posted Mon Oct 3 2005 18:43:18 by BR715-A1-30
Airbus Engine Start-up's posted Sun Jul 24 2005 19:24:31 by CYEGsTankers
Why A Dead Silence Beefore Engine Spoils Up? posted Sat Jan 5 2002 08:11:01 by AirNewZealand
717 Engine Question posted Mon Jul 30 2001 22:35:40 by AA61hvy
717-200 Thumbs Up? Down? posted Tue Feb 20 2001 21:48:33 by Mike_mit
Engine Start-Up posted Tue Mar 14 2000 22:56:11 by A300 American
TRS 717 Waiting Possible New Engine @ ROC posted Wed Aug 16 2006 04:05:25 by BAW2198
Plot To Blow Up Aircraft Inflight Foiled [Part 3] posted Thu Aug 10 2006 20:17:11 by Cadet57