777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:49 am

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
 
ETStar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:02 pm

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?
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:05 pm

There could have been other airport in the area, but MEL was the best option because of its bigger crash rescue resources.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:13 pm

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."
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:19 pm

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....
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:20 pm

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.
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:23 pm

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
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:23 pm

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!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:27 pm

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?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:30 pm

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:32 pm

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
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:33 pm

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.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:26 pm

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!
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4299
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:36 pm

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 avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:01 pm

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:28 pm

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
 
AA717driver
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:33 pm

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 avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:30 pm

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.)
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:38 pm

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

It gives it a nicer name....BMW engines
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:40 pm

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
Puhdiddle
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:56 pm

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

Break My Windows 715  laughing 
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:36 pm

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
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:39 pm

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.
 
haj96
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:00 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:53 pm

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
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:50 pm

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.
 
rootsgirl
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 3:48 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:43 am

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 dark out ), then we heard a loud bang and sort of a whistling noise. The aircraft ( A320)seemed to slightlty bank down lower on one side. I knew something was wrong, especially since we started to descend. I tried twice unsuccesfully to call the flight deck and understanding they were busy, I told the crew to '' prepare'' for a landing. Finally I was contacted by the flight deck who told me that we lost an engine and had to do an emergecny landing into Orlando. It all went well, no fatalilties, no catastrophe on landing. But....seeing what we ( the crew ) saw out that window, hearing the noise and feeling what we felt, I wondered what was happening....when you cant get a hold of the flight deck it tends to leave unanswered questions and a good thing the crew in the cabin just knew what to do and took action to get the cabin, galleys and pax secured. Passengers were deplanned and put on another aircraft. We flew home as passengers the following day.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:24 am

Quoting Haj96 (Reply 23):
When did this happen??? I guess you meant it flew with one engine out, right?%A0

Regards,
haj96

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
"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:54 am

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 and half way between the two cities, proceeding to Melbourne on the remaining engine was the only course of action available to the crew, other than wetting their pants like most respondents to this thread and electing to ditch in the middle of the night in Bass Strait.

Really guys, wake up. You criticise the media for getting wrong, but they look stone sober compared to the hysterical rubbish in this thread.

And as I said, the ATSB isn't carrying on. They apparently know the crew did all the right moves.

Antares
 
bucchinij
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 12:47 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:03 am

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 allowed to go long distances (up to 207 minutes I believe) on only one engine. These aren't the Connie days when many 1049s landed with only three running engines  Wink

That would have probably been my call also, to continue on with the flight.

As for the engine "blowing out", the loss of a compressor or turbine blade will cause enormeous vibration, causing more blades to fail. After all, those blades run in a very unhospitable environment: intense heat, intense centrifugal forces...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
Wow! "BMW715"?! You're going to ruin someone's weekend at RR Deutschland if they read that!



Quoting 777ER (Reply 18):
It gives it a nicer name....BMW engines

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.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting 777ER (Reply 20):
Break My Windows 715  laughing 

 rotfl  Oh, as a BMW car owner, you don't know how much this hit my funny bone! The window regulators on BMW's break way too often, thats a $150 repair that I get to go through once a year ever since I bought my car in 2000 new; and yes, three different repair shops!  hissyfit  Oh, the car is FUN!  goodvibes 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:01 am

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.

Antares
 
777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:59 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 24):
This is very dangerous thinking and should be avoided. When an aircraft is in real trouble it should land asap at any airport.

Why don't you tell the JQ pilot that
 
bucchinij
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 12:47 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:29 am

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't have that endurance, but it could have an ETOPS rating that allows it to finish the trip off single engine.

Here's a link to Boeing's website explaining ETOPS:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031015gq&a.html

"What is ETOPS?
ETOPS refers to “extended operations” and is a conservative, evolutionary program that lets airlines fly twin-engine jetliners on extended routes (i.e., air routes that at some point are more than 60 minutes’ flying time from an airport.) Since 1953, airliners with two engines have been restricted to operations within 60 minutes of an airport. However, starting in 1985, ETOPS standards have extended these times and until 2000, the limit has been up to 180 minutes. Since 2000, some airlines, on an as-needed basis, have applied for and received permission for 207 minutes."
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:38 am

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 airport, in fact they probably did in in less than 40 minutes from the moment the engine popped.

I am unaware of any 717 needing even 90 minutes ETOPS looking at the list of customers. Certainly Jetstar doesn't fly them more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport.

There are spots over the western deserts of Australia where non-ETOPS aircraft have to file a less than direct route. But quite frankly the 717 is the first truly short range jet since the Dassault Mercure, which the French used to lampoon as the only jet that couldn't actually leave France. (Technically not true of course, Lyon-Geneva was always achievable!)
 
bucchinij
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2000 12:47 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:43 am

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 authorities should not take action against the crew.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:42 pm

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 services. I can think of a few strips of sufficient length that might have been OK if it was on fire, in which case they'd probably ditch, since you don't have long in such situations, but suppose they had gone to Sale I doubt that they could have rounded up the emergency services before the wheels were on the ground in Tullamarine. Had through conditions Tullamarine been closed the extra minutes involved in diverting to the other alternatives in Victoria, including Essendon 8 kilometres from Tullamarine or Avalon or Mangalore (if it is still open these days) would have provided the notice needed for better ground support.

ETOPS has absolutely nothing to do with the situation that confronted the crew, who despite the nonsense posted on a different site, behaved absolutely correctly.

Antares
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:52 pm

Great news for me... I'm flying a 717 tomorrow!  Big grin
This Website Censors Me
 
QantasHeavy
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:47 pm

RE: 717 Engine Blows Up Inflight

Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:07 pm

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 'cause they've all gone home." Considering you have to click your mic three times on a special channel to get the runway light to even turn on ("after hours") in Launceston, I don't blame the crew for wanting to keep the airplane pointed north towards Melbourne, where there is a full complement of emargency equipment and facilities to handle a potential emergency. How would Launceston fare with a potential mas casualty response? I'm sure they'd do OK, but can't be expected to have the resources MEL would.

This isn't a csae of the pilots preferrring MEL because of a hassle factor (maintenance, etc.) like BA got reamed for... twice -- it was made as a safety consideration to go where the resources were able to handle things if they got worse. I think the math works for them on the distance too, condsider a the turn back time relative to "straight-in" to MEL.

Hats off to them for bringing the plane in safely.