Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:16 pm

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...
Last edited by KLDC10 on Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
 
User avatar
Narfish641
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - atl/orl

Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:16 pm

Glad everyone landed safely. Crazy incident, but crap happens.
Flew on:
SWA 737 738
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - atl/orl

Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:19 pm

Wasn't this news from yesterday?
 
User avatar
TWA302
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:17 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - atl/orl

Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:00 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
Wasn't this news from yesterday?


Yes, barely (2300 EDT). Since it hasn't been discussed why is that pertinent?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4384
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:58 pm

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
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - atl/orl

Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:15 pm

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).
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9716
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:18 pm

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.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3160
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:42 pm

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.
 
kiowa
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:35 pm

Pics?
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1363
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:39 am

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. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5377
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:01 am

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. :old:

you do know that aircraft age has basically nothing to do with engine age right?
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1363
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:24 am

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. :old:

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. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
Antarius
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:27 am

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. :old:


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.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - atl/orl

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:20 am

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
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3461
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:29 am

Are they going to pull a bird from the desert or are they just going to fix the powerplant and keep flying the frame?
...the carriage of liquids, gels, and aerosols are prohibited through the screening checkpoint except for travel size toiletries of 3 ounces or less...
 
Tedd
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:47 am

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. :old:



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.
 
77H
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:46 pm

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. :old:

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
Last edited by 77H on Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
77H
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:47 pm

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. :old:

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
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2368
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:21 pm

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.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:51 pm

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. :old:



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
 
IADCA
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:06 pm

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.
 
gokmengs
Posts: 1283
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:09 am

Surprised this is not reported on avherald yet...
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3160
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:49 am

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.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:00 pm

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.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:51 pm

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).
 
jagraham
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:20 pm

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.
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:10 pm

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?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:23 pm

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.
 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:43 pm

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!
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4444
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:45 pm

gokmengs wrote:
Surprised this is not reported on avherald yet...

Now it is:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bd540ea&opt=0
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
CL350PilotSmith
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:19 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:35 pm

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.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3442
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:24 pm

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. :old:


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. .
You are here.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:36 am

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
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:13 am

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.
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:39 pm

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.......
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:27 pm

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.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:21 pm

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.
 
Utah744
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:40 pm

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.
You are never too old to learn something stupid
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4906
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:29 pm

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.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
737max8
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:55 am

Assuming since night time no good photos from pax. Will the NTSB release pictures?
The thoughts and opinions expressed in my comments do not represent that of any airline or affiliate.
Flown on: 717 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 7M8 744 744ER 752 753 762 763 772 773ER 788 789 A220 A319/20/21 A332 A333 A339 A343 A346 A359 A388
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:59 am

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..
 
Myriad
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:28 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:31 am

So far, the most surprising thing about this incident is that there are no photos on this site or avherald.net.
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:35 pm

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.
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:05 pm

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
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:16 pm

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
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2368
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:38 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4906
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:16 pm

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.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:02 pm

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
 
B757Forever
Posts: 899
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:23 am

Re: Delta uncontained engine failure - ATL-MCO

Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:35 pm

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.
The Rolls Royce Dart. Noise = Shaft Horsepower.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos