Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL 777 Engine Failure And RTO In ATL 02JAN  
User currently offlineAndrewC75 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 91 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 26991 times:

Maybe this was mentioned and I didn't see it but ship 7005 (N864DA), a 777-232/ER with RR engines suffered a contained catastrophic starboard engine failure during the take-off roll from ATL bound for NRT on 02JAN.

I found a first hand account here.

To summarize the effect on the DL schedule thus far (as provided by a friend), ATL-DXB-ATL was canceled for 02 JAN (that ship used for ATL-NRT) and ATL-TLV-ATL downgagued to 767-300ER for 03 JAN with a fuel stop in BOS on the westbound leg.

I will be rather curious to see the pictures from this one.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 26885 times:

What's up with 777's and the RR engines? BA, now DL twice in the last month eh?


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineWingnutMN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 26842 times:

Instead of knowing the manufacturer of the engine, I am more interested in the hours flown on it. Likewise with all of the other IFSD for the 777. Is this one of the newer 77e for DL?

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 26632 times:



Quoting Breaker1011 (Reply 1):
What's up with 777's and the RR engines? BA, now DL twice in the last month eh?

Totally different failure modes...in the BA 777 incident, the engine itself was running fine, it just couldn't get enough fuel. This DL incident appears to be a contained structural failure, which is a whole different beastie.

Both types of failures, incidentally, have happened many times to other OEM's engines in the past.

Tom.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 25534 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Totally different failure modes...in the BA 777 incident, the engine itself was running fine, it just couldn't get enough fuel. This DL incident appears to be a contained structural failure, which is a whole different beastie.

The other DL thing was the same (or close) to the BA but this (like you said) is not.

Quoting WingnutMN (Reply 2):

Instead of knowing the manufacturer of the engine, I am more interested in the hours flown on it. Likewise with all of the other IFSD for the 777. Is this one of the newer 77e for DL?

Its a 99 bird. 7001-7007 are 99 7008 is 02 and 7101-7102 are 08 77Ls 7103-7111 will be 2009.



yep.
User currently offlineLAX25R From United States of America, joined May 2008, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23473 times:

Was the 777 the first commercial aircraft designed to prevent fan blades from going through the side of the engine? I seem to recall a Southwest 737 had an uncontained blade pierce part of the fusalage and in the 90s a couple people were killed in a Delta MD88 which threw a blade.

User currently offlineDFWramper From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22976 times:



Quoting AndrewC75 (Thread starter):
Maybe this was mentioned and I didn't see it but ship 7005 (N864DA), a 777-232/ER with RR engines suffered a contained catastrophic starboard engine failure during the take-off roll from ATL bound for NRT on 02JAN.

What was the previous leg for this plane? Not that it has anything to do with the failure....


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22787 times:



Quoting LAX25R (Reply 5):
Was the 777 the first commercial aircraft designed to prevent fan blades from going through the side of the engine?

No, that's been a certification requirement since well before the 777...it goes back at least to the 737-Classics (mid 80's), possibly much farther than that.

Quoting LAX25R (Reply 5):
I seem to recall a Southwest 737 had an uncontained blade pierce part of the fusalage and in the 90s a couple people were killed in a Delta MD88 which threw a blade.

The SWA case was a weird one where the engine threw chunks forward as well as outward, and I don't recall ever seeing a final report explaining that one. The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

Tom.


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 21758 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Quoting LAX25R (Reply 5):
I seem to recall a Southwest 737 had an uncontained blade pierce part of the fusalage and in the 90s a couple people were killed in a Delta MD88 which threw a blade.

The SWA case was a weird one where the engine threw chunks forward as well as outward, and I don't recall ever seeing a final report explaining that one. The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

Wasn't there and AD for the JT8D engines to help prevent that in the future?


How was the aircraft after the RTO?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineTepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 210 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 20657 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

Nope. For many many years, the requirements in all countries' airworthiness requirements is that any single blade release must be contained (without debris escaping with significant energy). I'd say that everything flying satisfies this requirement. The rules apply to Fan blades, compressor blades and turbine blades. (There are separate rules for props.)

However, this just covers single blade release. Multiple blade releases need to be shown to be very unlikely by design.

Disc failure result in so much energy that casings won't contain them. The approach here is to show that disc stresses are so low that large cracks won't form within the life of the disc. That's why discs are lifed.

Hope this helps.


User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20445 times:

Just to give us an idea, can anyone tell me what's the real RPM of the N1 prop on those engines, say, at full thrust ? At idle thrust ?

And, could anyone tell me, but that's less likely, what is the weight of a single blade ?

Because according to the video posted above, the forces in and around those engines must be tremendous.

[Edited 2009-01-05 00:52:05]


Cheers
User currently offlineBanjo76 From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20274 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

I'm not questioning your quote, rather wondering if this regulation makes sense... If a fan blade hits you and cuts your throat it's bad, if a segment of turbine or a compressor fan hits you is that ok?
Is certification built like that because compressors and turbines are let's say "less exposed" than fans?

Banjo


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 19927 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

I after reading yor post I got curious and opened my FAR book and found this:

FAR 33.94

"(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, it must be demonstrated by engine tests that the engine is capable of containing damgae without catching fire and with out failure of its mounting attachments when operated for atleast 15 seconds, unless the resulting damage induces a self shutdown, after each of the following events:

(1) Failure of the most critical compressor or fan blade while operating at maximum
permissible RPM. The blade failure must occur at the outer most retention groove or,
for integrally-bladed rotor discs, at least 80 percent of the blade must fail.

(2) Failure of the most critical turbine blade while operating at maximum permissible
RPM. The blade failure must occur at the outermost retention groove for integrally-
bladed rotor discs, atleast 80 percent of the blade must fail. The most critical turbine
must be determined by considering turbine blade weight and the strength of the
adjacent turbine case at case temperatures and pressures associated with operation
at maximum permissible RPM."

Paragraph (b) allows for alternate means of accomplishing one of the blade failure testings as long as they are equivalent to the test.


If I read this correctly this paragraph require the engine to contain a turbine failure.



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineCptspeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 17065 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 12):
If I read this correctly this paragraph require the engine to contain a turbine failure.

Turbine BLADE failure, not the entire disc...

An example of an uncontained disc is that AA 762 that ripped itself apart in a MX runup @ LAX...



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 15189 times:

Wasn't the UAL DC-10 Sioux City accident the result of a disc failure that caused the severing of all three hydraulic lines?

In the early 90's I did a project at the GE Evendale OH plant where the CF6 is made. It was great walking to the office each day as it was in the back and I had to pass by engines in various states of completion. At the time, someone from GE told me that the main disc on the CF6 was the single most costly part of the engine.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14887 times:



Quoting Cptspeaking (Reply 13):
Turbine BLADE failure, not the entire disc...

I understand that, but how would an entire disc that is attached to the shaft going to come off in one whole peice?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14878 times:



Quoting LAX25R (Reply 5):
in the 90s a couple people were killed in a Delta MD88 which threw a blade.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06203&key=1

The Delta failure was a fan hub disintegration
due to a fatigue crack in the hub.

It did not shuck a blade til after the hub split apart



also...it was the compressor section not the turbine section.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 8):
How was the aircraft after the RTO?

If your refering to the Delta flight....see the NTSB report referenced...

KD


User currently offlineDubliftment From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14689 times:

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 10):
Just to give us an idea, can anyone tell me what's the real RPM of the N1 prop on those engines, say, at full thrust ? At idle thrust ?

And, could anyone tell me, but that's less likely, what is the weight of a single blade ?

One fanblade of the CF6 engine (which has nothing to do with RR Trents) weighs appr. 3.8kg or 7.5 pounds, being made of Titanium-Alluminium-Vanadium. The Trent widechord fanblades are bigger, but made of lighter materials (carbon fibre compound and Titanium at leading edge) and should have appr. the same weight.

Judging from my knowlegde of the CF6, N1 on a Trent at T/O should also be around 4000rpm (which is 100%, idle is about 55-60%, flight idle 65-70% and criuse 90-95% of this.)

So the calculation is, that at T/O thrust setting one fanblade of the CF6 "weighs" (has potential energy) of about 5 tons (if you translate it into terms of gravity).

Edit: Fan Diameter of the CF6 is "only" 2,33m compared to 2,95m of the Trent 800, so the contrifugal force, if weight and N1 equal the CF6 numbers, is much higher.

[Edited 2009-01-05 13:22:28]

[Edited 2009-01-05 13:47:45]

User currently offlineFruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 552 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14468 times:



Quoting Dubliftment (Reply 17):
The Trent widechord fanblades are bigger, but made of lighter materials (carbon fibre compound and Titanium at leading edge)

Not wishing to nit-pick but you may be confusing GE90-style fan blades with Trent-style blades - from the RR website, specifcally the Trent 800 engine info:

Wide-chord fan
The hollow, titanium wide-chord fan blade, pioneered by Rolls-Royce and introduced into airline service in the 1980s, set new standards in aerodynamic efficiency and resistance to foreign object damage. Designed specifically for high-bypass turbofans, the breadth of these blades sets them apart from the narrow and less efficient equivalents of earlier times.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...ducts/airlines/trent800/engine.jsp

None of your fancy boy racer carbon tennis racquet rubbish in those bits of kit Big grin



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14409 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 8):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
The SWA case was a weird one where the engine threw chunks forward as well as outward, and I don't recall ever seeing a final report explaining that one. The Delta MD88 was a turbine failure, not a fan failure, and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

Wasn't there and AD for the JT8D engines to help prevent that in the future?

I think there was something about inspection to prevent the disc failure, not a containment change, but I welcome someone posting more details on the fix.

Quoting TepidHalibut (Reply 9):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
and there's no requirement to contain a failed turbine.

Nope. For many many years, the requirements in all countries' airworthiness requirements is that any single blade release must be contained

Disc failure result in so much energy that casings won't contain them. The approach here is to show that disc stresses are so low that large cracks won't form within the life of the disc. That's why discs are lifed.

Hope this helps.



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 12):
I after reading yor post I got curious and opened my FAR book and found this:
FAR 33.94

If I read this correctly this paragraph require the engine to contain a turbine failure.

I was talking specifically about disc failures (that's what I meant when I said "failed turbine" as opposed to "failed blade"). I wasn't very clear on that though.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 10):
Because according to the video posted above, the forces in and around those engines must be tremendous.

It is. Thousands of g's acceleration, typically.

Quoting Banjo76 (Reply 11):
I'm not questioning your quote, rather wondering if this regulation makes sense... If a fan blade hits you and cuts your throat it's bad, if a segment of turbine or a compressor fan hits you is that ok?
Is certification built like that because compressors and turbines are let's say "less exposed" than fans?

As several posters clarified, the engine must contain a blade failure, regardless of which spool. Typically, because of size, the fan blades are the most critical. However, disc failures have too much energy to be contained and the critical disc is typically in the turbines. It's more effective to mitigate disc failure risk by design, manufacturing, and inspection than by containment.

Quoting FlyLKU (Reply 14):
Wasn't the UAL DC-10 Sioux City accident the result of a disc failure that caused the severing of all three hydraulic lines?

Yes.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 15):
Quoting Cptspeaking (Reply 13):
Turbine BLADE failure, not the entire disc...

I understand that, but how would an entire disc that is attached to the shaft going to come off in one whole peice?

It won't come off in one piece...the forces are so large that, as soon as a crack goes critical it's going to split into at least two pieces. Three is actually the worst case.

Tom.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14257 times:



Quoting Dubliftment (Reply 17):
One fanblade of the CF6 engine (which has nothing to do with RR Trents) weighs appr. 3.8kg or 7.5 pounds,



Quoting Dubliftment (Reply 17):
Trent at T/O should also be around 4000rpm



Quoting Dubliftment (Reply 17):
Fan Diameter of the CF6 is "only" 2,33m compared to 2,95m of the Trent 800,

These numbers seem realistic, though as you say, the Trent 800 fan blade would be heavier than the CF6, and I also think the T-800 N1 RPM at take off would be a bit less than 4000RPM. Nonetheless, using these numbers, I suspect the centrifugal (centripetal?) force would be somewhat more than 5 tons.

Quoting Dubliftment (Reply 17):
So the calculation is, that at T/O thrust setting one fanblade of the CF6 "weighs" (has potential energy) of about 5 tons

According to my calculations, 4,000 RPM works out to be 418.879 radians per second. Assuming that the C of G of the blade mass is 1 metre from the fan hub axis, the tangential speed of the C of G of the blade would come out to 418.879 metres per second.

The centripetal acceleration is thus ((418.879)^2) / 1 = 175,459 m*s^2, (17,885G). Using F = ma, the centripetal force on the blade root works out to be about 666,744N, or just under 68 tonnes.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14057 times:



Quoting JetMech (Reply 20):

Umm.... Wow.... And I thought my digging my FAR book out and knocking the dust off of it was a bit nerdy. Although I will say that is very impressive! Very nice!



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13938 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 21):

According to this link, I have actually under-estimated the force at the blade root.

http://education.rolls-royce.com/Trent-800-jet-engines/

According to RR, the force is closer to 100 tonnes. Not too sure if this is for the -800 however.

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineXaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 13843 times:



Quoting JetMech (Reply 22):
http://education.rolls-royce.com/Trent-800-jet-engines/

Wow, those are impressing and totally unreal figures! I never imagined turbofans were that tough  Wow!



An open mind is not an empty one
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7109 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13716 times:



Quoting XaraB (Reply 23):

Wow, those are impressing and totally unreal figures! I never imagined turbofans were that tough

Which makes the fact that modern jet engines are as reliable as they are even more impressive. In my opinion that is about the most amazing feat of modern technology. When we were flying piston engined planes, as the engines got bigger and more powerful reliability declined; this has not happened with jet engines. Reliability has improved dramatically, independent of size.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 Banjo76 : I understand that you don't have to contain whole discs, but what about compressor and turbine blades? Banjo
26 Tdscanuck : Yes, a single blade failure has to be contained. It can shred the entire guts of the engine, but it shouldn't exit sideways (from the inlet or exhaus
27 Post contains images Atlturbine : [Edited 2009-01-06 21:03:09]
28 Atlturbine : Hope u like the pics...best I could do.
29 B727LVR : That looks exspensive, and I bet it sounded exspensive too! From the photos and they way the blades are numbered, looke like blade #1 is missing! Wond
30 Wjcandee : You did GOOD! That's worth a big shrimp cocktail and libation at Spondivits, for sure! Too bad I'm not in ATL much anymore... So here's an imaginary
31 Post contains images Atlturbine : As you can see the blade EXITED the cowling.
32 Gregarious119 : I wouldn't want to be in the way of that thing! Is the picture of the cowling hole facing away from or towards the fuselage?
33 SEPilot : It probably had lost most of its energy by the time it exited, and wouldn't have done too much damage had it hit the fuselage.
34 Atlturbine : The blade went through the inboard side of the cowling & at least a portion struck the fuselage causing very minor damage. Facing the cowling the hole
35 Airtechy : How do airlines proceed after an incident like this? I would guess the FAA inspects the damage on the aircraft, issues permission to R and R the engin
36 Tdscanuck : I don't believe they'd need FAA inspection to go back in the air (other than their delegated inspection authority via their ops certificate). Priorit
37 Luv2cattlecall : According to a Discovery Channel special, a GE90 blade costs $70,000 ..for just one! These are probably similarly priced, barring any mail in rebates
38 B727LVR : Oh yeah.... RR is known for their mail in rebates... HAHA. That is a pretty crazy number for a blade. Any word on how new this engine was?
39 SEPilot : From the looks of it, I suspect that the cost of this is going to approach a completely new engine. Not only are all fan and stator blades affected, a
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...
CO 777 Engine Failure posted Tue May 3 2005 01:30:35 by Pl4nekr4zy
Emirate's 777 Engine Failure posted Thu Feb 22 2001 04:38:06 by Guillermo
Whats The DL 777 Schedule In ATL? posted Mon Dec 19 2005 14:16:02 by Avi8tir
Cheetah Loose In DL Cargo Hold In ATL! posted Fri Oct 31 2008 15:04:38 by StasisLAX
Aeromexico 777 In ATL Today! posted Sun Apr 27 2008 20:12:58 by OOer
DL/ASA Near Collision In ATL posted Fri Jan 11 2008 20:12:44 by AS777
DL 777 ATL-PHX Feb. 4th posted Sat Jan 5 2008 20:12:57 by D328
Video: Change Of 777 Engine In 6 Hrs! Awesome! posted Tue Dec 4 2007 14:10:47 by 797
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
KLM Engine Failure In St Maarten On Aug 3rd posted Mon Aug 6 2007 12:59:28 by LesQuatreGats
Aeromexico 777 In ATL Today! posted Sun Apr 27 2008 20:12:58 by OOer
DL/ASA Near Collision In ATL posted Fri Jan 11 2008 20:12:44 by AS777
DL 777 ATL-PHX Feb. 4th posted Sat Jan 5 2008 20:12:57 by D328
Video: Change Of 777 Engine In 6 Hrs! Awesome! posted Tue Dec 4 2007 14:10:47 by 797
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
KLM Engine Failure In St Maarten On Aug 3rd posted Mon Aug 6 2007 12:59:28 by LesQuatreGats
CO 777 Engine Failure posted Tue May 3 2005 01:30:35 by Pl4nekr4zy
Emirate's 777 Engine Failure posted Thu Feb 22 2001 04:38:06 by Guillermo
Whats The DL 777 Schedule In ATL? posted Mon Dec 19 2005 14:16:02 by Avi8tir
Cheetah Loose In DL Cargo Hold In ATL! posted Fri Oct 31 2008 15:04:38 by StasisLAX
Aeromexico 777 In ATL Today! posted Sun Apr 27 2008 20:12:58 by OOer
DL/ASA Near Collision In ATL posted Fri Jan 11 2008 20:12:44 by AS777
DL 777 ATL-PHX Feb. 4th posted Sat Jan 5 2008 20:12:57 by D328
Video: Change Of 777 Engine In 6 Hrs! Awesome! posted Tue Dec 4 2007 14:10:47 by 797
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
KLM Engine Failure In St Maarten On Aug 3rd posted Mon Aug 6 2007 12:59:28 by LesQuatreGats
Video: Change Of 777 Engine In 6 Hrs! Awesome! posted Tue Dec 4 2007 14:10:47 by 797
DL Connection Concourse C In ATL posted Sun Aug 12 2007 00:48:48 by Evan767
KLM Engine Failure In St Maarten On Aug 3rd posted Mon Aug 6 2007 12:59:28 by LesQuatreGats