A little more information from the OP would be useful. Here is an article from FlightGlobal: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lu-451730/

Summary:
September 5th 2018
Delta Flight 1418: ATL-MCO (Atlanta-Orlando)
Boeing 757-200 N668DN
For the record, this aircraft was delivered in June 1991

The engine was shut down in-flight, no one was injured and the aircraft returned safely to Atlanta. If it's any help, neither the year 1988, nor the year 1989 had anything to do with it...

more info:

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airl ... rts-flying

Glad everyone landed safely. Crazy incident, but crap happens.

Wasn't this news from yesterday?

Judge1310 wrote:

Wasn't this news from yesterday?

Yes, barely (2300 EDT). Since it hasn't been discussed why is that pertinent?

KLDC10 wrote:

A little more information from the OP would be useful. Here is an article from FlightGlobal: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... lu-451730/

Summary:
September 5th 2018
Delta Flight 1418: ATL-MCO (Atlanta-Orlando)
Boeing 757-200 N668DN
For the record, this aircraft was delivered in June 1991

The engine was shut down in-flight, no one was injured and the aircraft returned safely to Atlanta. If it's any help, neither the year 1988, nor the year 1989 had anything to do with it...

Since yours is the more substantive post, I have made you the OP rather than delete the thread.

Users please note than when starting threads based on news events, sources are required by forum rules, as is user commentary for discussion. Thank you, KLDC10 for providing the info.

✈️ atcsundevil

TWA302 wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

Wasn't this news from yesterday?

Yes, barely (2300 EDT). Since it hasn't been discussed why is that pertinent?

Because no previous post mentioned the date and it was a bit surprising to not see that specified in the original (or subsequent) post(s).

Just a point: they keep saying "uncontained" engine failure. If stuff comes out the tailpipe, it isn't "uncontained", it's just debris. Surprisingly, we haven't seen any "we're gonna die!!!" Twitter videos or photos out the window. This suggests, at least, that the description may be exaggerated, and we won't know until we see a photo or learn more complete info. The Flightglobal article talked about "on departure from ATL", which may be technically accurate but can be misread, as I did, to mean during the takeoff run, and now we find out they shut it down at FL180. It's possible that this was an engine issue requiring a precautionary shutdown, and it's likely that it was serious, given that DL said they would be changing the engine, but uncontained engine failure might be an overstatement here. Or not. It will be interesting to see.

From what little I heard today, it was uncontained. Nobody knew what came out or how much. NTSB still had the airplane impounded, likely until later Thursday night. I did hear it was a high time engine.

Pics?

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

you do know that aircraft age has basically nothing to do with engine age right?

deltal1011man wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

you do know that aircraft age has basically nothing to do with engine age right?

Yes, I know that the age of aircraft has NOTHING to do with the age of the engine. Or should I say Power Plant. Dalmd88 mentioned that the engine was a high time engine. The OP stated that the aircraft was delivered in June of 1991. I therefore was curious if Delta was using up the time on the engines and was going to retire the aircraft due to its age and maybe it was going to need a heavy check.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

This is like doing an experiment with no control group. Every engine failure isnt the same, so with all due respect, the data points are insufficient to make any form of conclusion.

Narfish641 wrote:

Glad everyone landed safely. Crazy incident, but crap happens.

It does happen yes...but uncontained engine failures are a very rare sort of crap...very exceptional indeed...


Faro

Are they going to pull a bird from the desert or are they just going to fix the powerplant and keep flying the frame?

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

I don`t understand how you can suggest PW have a better record of containing debris than any other. All engine failures
are different with so many variables, these include, engine & aircraft speed, where in the engine the damage eminated,
etc, etc. While all engines are tested to contain fan blades ( the fan casings do a phenominal job btw ) there isn`t much that
can be done to contain certain failures behind the fan, & in instances of catastrophic failure that we`ve seen during the
recent past, it can put lives & the whole aircraft at risk depending in which direction the debris/shrapnel is flung.
All three of the major engine manufactures do a remarkable job of producing the safest powerplants possible, but you
can`t guarantee against mechanical failure in any of them.

deltal1011man wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

you do know that aircraft age has basically nothing to do with engine age right?

You sure you’re responding to the right post? Rooster never mention aircraft or engine age, rather an observation of engine manufacturers.

77H

deltal1011man wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

you do know that aircraft age has basically nothing to do with engine age right?

You sure you’re responding to the right post? Rooster never mentioned aircraft or engine age, rather an observation of engine manufacturers.

77H

flymco753 wrote:

Are they going to pull a bird from the desert or are they just going to fix the powerplant and keep flying the frame?

If there's no damage to the airframe why wouldn't they just hang a new engine on it and send it on its way?

It's in ATLANTA, for pete's sake ... where they FIX the things in the first place!

Plenty of parts and personnel at hand, including - yes, spare engines.

Tedd wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

I don`t understand how you can suggest PW have a better record of containing debris than any other. All engine failures
are different with so many variables, these include, engine & aircraft speed, where in the engine the damage eminated,
etc, etc. While all engines are tested to contain fan blades ( the fan casings do a phenominal job btw ) there isn`t much that
can be done to contain certain failures behind the fan, & in instances of catastrophic failure that we`ve seen during the
recent past, it can put lives & the whole aircraft at risk depending in which direction the debris/shrapnel is flung.
All three of the major engine manufactures do a remarkable job of producing the safest powerplants possible, but you
can`t guarantee against mechanical failure in any of them.

I have to agree. United, for example, recently had that PW powered 777a with a pretty bad uncontained engine failure on the SFOHNL run. The cowling was pretty much entirely torn away and lost at sea

wjcandee wrote:

Just a point: they keep saying "uncontained" engine failure. If stuff comes out the tailpipe, it isn't "uncontained", it's just debris. Surprisingly, we haven't seen any "we're gonna die!!!" Twitter videos or photos out the window. This suggests, at least, that the description may be exaggerated, and we won't know until we see a photo or learn more complete info. The Flightglobal article talked about "on departure from ATL", which may be technically accurate but can be misread, as I did, to mean during the takeoff run, and now we find out they shut it down at FL180. It's possible that this was an engine issue requiring a precautionary shutdown, and it's likely that it was serious, given that DL said they would be changing the engine, but uncontained engine failure might be an overstatement here. Or not. It will be interesting to see.

The incident happened at around 11:15 pm, so it's unlikely that the lighting was available to get a decent shot or video, it happened at an altitude that the plane can hold on one engine, and it doesn't seem like there was a decompression. That leaves a lot less to panic about: no clear visuals, no rapid descent, no masks, likely just one loud bang followed by a U-turn and normal descent.

Surprised this is not reported on avherald yet...

flymco753 wrote:

Are they going to pull a bird from the desert or are they just going to fix the powerplant and keep flying the frame?

I would bet It already has a spare engine installed by now. There was no plan to retire this aircraft soon either. The damaged engine was likely going to be changed in the next few months anyways. It was getting near it's overhaul life cycle.

Even before knowing the details of the failure, a few things need to be said . .
1) Engine shutdowns are rare. Uncontained failures are even more rare.
2) There are some assumptions made about how engines will come apart. The United DC10 was a particular issue because the fan hub broke in two. The containment system is supposed to handle a fan blade (what happened to the fatal Southwest incident should not have happened) but it is not built to handle a fan hub.
3) There are some pretty old engines out there. Flying every day. With no problems except for increased fuel consumption. Age is not a good determiner of if an engine is going to come apart.

I'm not even going to touch those "Pratts are better" comments.

I feel like I’ve heard about these incidents a lot in the past year; Air France’s a380, United’s 777, then Southwest’s fatal one.

Glad it didn’t pierce through the fuselage, and hope that in that event a kid wasn’t sucked out as these MCO flights have a lot of kids on em supposedly (probably not so much right now).

Even before knowing the details of the failure, a few things need to be said . .
1) Engine shutdowns are rare. Uncontained failures are even more rare.
2) There are some assumptions made about how engines will come apart. The United DC10 was a particular issue because the fan hub broke in two. The containment system is supposed to handle a fan blade (what happened to the fatal Southwest incident should not have happened) but it is not built to handle a fan hub.
3) There are some pretty old engines out there. Flying every day. With no problems except for increased fuel consumption. Age is not a good determiner of if an engine is going to come apart.

I'm not even going to touch those "Pratts are better" comments.

KLDC10 wrote:

The engine was shut down in-flight, no one was injured and the aircraft returned safely to Atlanta. If it's any help, neither the year 1988, nor the year 1989 had anything to do with it...

What does this mean?

questions wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

The engine was shut down in-flight, no one was injured and the aircraft returned safely to Atlanta. If it's any help, neither the year 1988, nor the year 1989 had anything to do with it...

What does this mean?

This is a reference to a certain member with a weird obsession with how planes built 1988 and after are supposedly a lot better than planes built before. This member also has a weird obsession with calling 767s worst planes and A320 best planes in almost every post.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

questions wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

The engine was shut down in-flight, no one was injured and the aircraft returned safely to Atlanta. If it's any help, neither the year 1988, nor the year 1989 had anything to do with it...

What does this mean?

This is a reference to a certain member with a weird obsession with how planes built 1988 and after are supposedly a lot better than planes built before. This member also has a weird obsession with calling 767s worst planes and A320 best planes in almost every post.

Yes, this thread has undergone some moderation since it was originally posted. I was not, in fact, the OP, but my later post was made the OP by atcsundevil as it provided more information than was given by the original OP: Also deleted was a post by a member who suggested that the incident had something to do with the fact that the 757 entered into service prior to 1988. Hope that makes (some) sense!

gokmengs wrote:

Surprised this is not reported on avherald yet...

Now it is:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bd540ea&opt=0

I’m a Challenger 350 driver and was a passenger on this flight. Definitely was not a flameout, rollback, or precautionary shutdown. I was in the window seat directly aft of the right wing. Climbing through FL180 there was a solid bang followed by flames and sparks exiting the number 2 engine. I did not assume it was an uncontained failure since there was no perceptible impact of engine part with the airframe, but I mentally prepared for a possible blown tire on landing. Given the explosive nature of the failure I would not be surprised if it was uncontained. The crew did a great job getting us back on the ground safely (longest 15 minutes in an airplane - especially when I observed more sparks some 5 minutes after shutdown). BTW - this flight was a line check for them. I assume they passed! Just wish I had videoed the event.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

How close to retirement is this aircraft. Pratt & Whitney engines generally from my experience have a better record for containing containing debris. An example is the GE powered United DC-10 that had an uncontained engine failure of the number two engine and severed all the hydraulic lines. It tried to land at Souix City, Iowa and almost did. Northwest Airlines had a Pratt & Whitney powered DC-10 that had the number two engine, which was a JT9D-20, shortly after that disintegrate in flight but contained all the debris and landed safely at Denver, Colorado without any other damage. Pratt's engines were built stronger to with stand this type of engine failure.

So wrong on so many facts. First off, that Pratt & Whitney engine failure on the Northwest DC-10 also resulted in a uncontained failure. There were holes through the engine casing and cowling. IIRC, it was just a blade failure. The United GE engine at Sioux City, was a fan disk failure, two very different animals. Also the tail cone came off the engine.

"visual inspection of the plane revealed several 'small' holes in the cowling of the No. 2 tail engine and 'relatively minor external damage.'"

And the same Northwest DC-10 had a #3 engine years before that lost a blade and had a uncontained engine failure which caused a lot of damage when the fan containment case broke off.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/d ... -31-US.pdf

Pratts aren't any tougher than other engines. They made thicker engine cases back then, whereas nowadays there is a Kevlar blanket around the fan case to be part of the fan blade containment so as to save weight on the bigger fans. Only thing I would say is that old JT8s could compressor stall and survive, unlike todays hi-tech engines where a compressor stall almost always means there is internal engine damage. .

N668DN as of last month had just shy of 84k hrs and 38,746 cycles. According to Delta that barley broken in. A little paint some pleather seats and the cattle won’t know WTF they on

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

It's just you.

A.Net - The 757 is the greatest plane ever built. Boeing should restart the line and build more; Also A.Net. The 757 is so old and not safe, Delta should have ordered MAX or NEOs.......

bkflyguy wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

It's just you.

A.Net - The 757 is the greatest plane ever built. Boeing should restart the line and build more; Also A.Net. The 757 is so old and not safe, Delta should have ordered MAX or NEOs.......

The question isn't about safety measured in terms of fatalities but rather whether other carriers are having as many engine failures with other types.

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

There are brand spanking new A32X's flying or that can't even be delivered at the moment because they have engines less reliable and more problem-ridden than these Delta 757's, lack of new planes isn't the problem.

bkflyguy wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

I had 4 year as a B757 Captain. One starter and one generator failure were the only significant failures. I's go back and fly them right now if they let 72 year olds fly.

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

I think it's just you.

When you consider they had over 250 757s in service over time, and double that for engines, you're gonna see more total issues, even if the failure rate is nothing out of the ordinary.

Assuming since night time no good photos from pax. Will the NTSB release pictures?

CL350PilotSmith wrote:

I’m a Challenger 350 driver and was a passenger on this flight. Definitely was not a flameout, rollback, or precautionary shutdown. I was in the window seat directly aft of the right wing. Climbing through FL180 there was a solid bang followed by flames and sparks exiting the number 2 engine. I did not assume it was an uncontained failure since there was no perceptible impact of engine part with the airframe, but I mentally prepared for a possible blown tire on landing. Given the explosive nature of the failure I would not be surprised if it was uncontained. The crew did a great job getting us back on the ground safely (longest 15 minutes in an airplane - especially when I observed more sparks some 5 minutes after shutdown). BTW - this flight was a line check for them. I assume they passed! Just wish I had videoed the event.

Thank you for that post..Very informative..talk about the wrong place at the wrong time...interesting to hear from a direct eyewitness too..

So far, the most surprising thing about this incident is that there are no photos on this site or avherald.net.

usdcaguy wrote:

bkflyguy wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

Is it just me, or are the engines on the 75's particularly prone to failure? Seems like DL has had a number of in-flight emergencies with its 757 engines. You have to wonder if DL is flying them a bit past their prime and should have ordered the A321s earlier.

It's just you.

A.Net - The 757 is the greatest plane ever built. Boeing should restart the line and build more; Also A.Net. The 757 is so old and not safe, Delta should have ordered MAX or NEOs.......

The question isn't about safety measured in terms of fatalities but rather whether other carriers are having as many engine failures with other types.

How many hours do PW2000's have on wing? A lot. In comparison, look at all the NEO/MAX engine issues just getting them produced, plus the issues they've had on wind so far. I am not saying they are bad engines, and I think over time they will be great engines, but the PW2000 is a workhorse and very reliable. One event (esp. when we don't yet know the exact cause) does not a crisis make.

People keep referring to the "uncontained" engine failure, but I have seen no photo or reports of fuselage damage or engine damage that would equate to an "uncontained" failure --- just sayin...

bob75013 wrote:

People keep referring to the "uncontained" engine failure, but I have seen no photo or reports of fuselage damage or engine damage that would equate to an "uncontained" failure --- just sayin...

edit add: and this from Delta leads me to believe there was no fuselage damage: 'Atlanta-based Delta referred questions to the NTSB, but said it had replaced the engine and planned to return the 757 to service Sept. 11."

http://atwonline.com/safety/ntsb-invest ... ne-failure

jagraham wrote:

Even before knowing the details of the failure, a few things need to be said . .
1) Engine shutdowns are rare.

I think it was noted after US 1549, that the dual failure was the first time either of the crew had ever had an in-flight engine failure.

Think on how long both of those careers were at that point ... and the sheer number of flights under both those belts ... and zero prior failures.

bob75013 wrote:

People keep referring to the "uncontained" engine failure, but I have seen no photo or reports of fuselage damage or engine damage that would equate to an "uncontained" failure --- just sayin...

Uncontained can also refer to parts coming straight out the back of the engine, so lack of fuselage damage doesn't really tell you if it was contained or not.

Spacepope wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

People keep referring to the "uncontained" engine failure, but I have seen no photo or reports of fuselage damage or engine damage that would equate to an "uncontained" failure --- just sayin...

Uncontained can also refer to parts coming straight out the back of the engine, so lack of fuselage damage doesn't really tell you if it was contained or not.

I don't think that most people think that debris coming out of the tailpipe constitutes an "uncontained" failure..

I believe most people think it is something quite different. More like this:

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Unc ... ne_Failure

Spacepope wrote:

Uncontained can also refer to parts coming straight out the back of the engine, so lack of fuselage damage doesn't really tell you if it was contained or not.

If this was the case, that would make 99% of JT8 failures uncontained.