ethernal wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

They were fortunate that it happened when and where it did and not over the pacific halfway to HNL.

I would argue the opposite. The most risky point for the passengers (the initial explosion) had already passed. It would have been better to have happened in the middle of the ocean. The probability of debris hitting someone on the ground is far higher than the enormous statistical improbability of the second engine failing in the three hours to HNL (or back to the mainland).

What is lucky is that no one was hit by debris.

StarAC17 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Would this be an NTSB or FAA investigation?

NTSB.

I don't think the FAA directly investigates accidents or incidents primarily. The NTSB can enroll the FAA to investigate UA if any negligence is suspected.

StarAC17 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Would this be an NTSB or FAA investigation?

NTSB.

I don't think the FAA directly investigates accidents or incidents primarily. The NTSB can enroll the FAA to investigate UA if any negligence is suspected.

CALTECH wrote:

Bird Strike is the word....
Blood all over the inlet....
Haven't seen the photos yet....

litz wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Bird Strike is the word....
Blood all over the inlet....
Haven't seen the photos yet....

If so that had to be quite the bird. What can get up that high over the Rockies?

PA727 wrote:

Thankfully everyone on the plane and on the ground is safe, but have to go ahead and call the truck a write-off. Looks to be a late 90's-early 2000's build Ram, so equivalent of a 737 Classic. Think her next stop is soup cans.

Adipocere wrote:

Video of homeowners likely totaled truck

https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comment ... oded_over/

Newark727 wrote:

If a piece of an airplane engine falls from the sky and lands in your backyard, are you allowed to keep it?

TropicalSky wrote:

look rather bad in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6wgXNSwCDA

Newark727 wrote:

If a piece of an airplane engine falls from the sky and lands in your backyard, are you allowed to keep it?

gwrudolph wrote:

alasizon wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

My understanding is that you generally file with your primary insurance carrier, they pay, and subrogate

Given the news coverage of this particular house, UA Public Relations will likely reach out to the individual as well and give them the 411 on how best to get his truck replaced and may choose to forego the insurance runaround. It's been a while since I've worked with our insurance teams but I seem to recall that although flight operations hull loss and human liability can't be self-insured, damage to property on the ground can be.

Fair enough. Being proactive given the publicity is likely the approach that will be taken . . .

litz wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Bird Strike is the word....
Blood all over the inlet....
Haven't seen the photos yet....

If so that had to be quite the bird. What can get up that high over the Rockies?

Yeastbeast wrote:

I am a totally unknowledgeable internet nerd. My question on that video is: I'm assuming the flight crew would have the fuel shut off by that point, why is that section still glowing orange? Residual heat? Residual fuel still pouring in through a cut fuel line? Just wondering.

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

wjcandee wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

You make a claim to your own insurance, and provide them with the information, and they notify United's insurance company, which will pay them virtually-immediately because there's no reason to fight it. If they pay the claim (or often even just accept liability (i.e. agree to pay the claim)), you get the deductible back.

Just like with auto insurance. Person rear ends me in traffic. Person admits to police that they were momentarily-distracted and that I was already stopped. Police are kind enough to include that admission in the police report. I give said report to my insurer. I take the car to the body shop of my choice and my insurer coordinates with them and the job gets done. Because the person who hit me's insurer had already called my insurer and accepted liability, I don't have to lay out my deductible and get it back later; it's taken care of by the time my car is fixed. Easy-peasy.

alasizon wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

My understanding is that you generally file with your primary insurance carrier, they pay, and subrogate

Given the news coverage of this particular house, UA Public Relations will likely reach out to the individual as well and give them the 411 on how best to get his truck replaced and may choose to forego the insurance runaround. It's been a while since I've worked with our insurance teams but I seem to recall that although flight operations hull loss and human liability can't be self-insured, damage to property on the ground can be.

mga707 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

My understanding is that you generally file with your primary insurance carrier, they pay, and subrogate

Given the news coverage of this particular house, UA Public Relations will likely reach out to the individual as well and give them the 411 on how best to get his truck replaced and may choose to forego the insurance runaround. It's been a while since I've worked with our insurance teams but I seem to recall that although flight operations hull loss and human liability can't be self-insured, damage to property on the ground can be.

United could have a PR 'win' if they buy this homeowner a loaded 2021 Ram.

mkorpal333 wrote:

litz wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Bird Strike is the word....
Blood all over the inlet....
Haven't seen the photos yet....

If so that had to be quite the bird. What can get up that high over the Rockies?

The strike (assuming it was) was at about 12,000 feet. Plenty of birds can fly that high.

mga707 wrote:

mkorpal333 wrote:

litz wrote:

If so that had to be quite the bird. What can get up that high over the Rockies?

The strike (assuming it was) was at about 12,000 feet. Plenty of birds can fly that high.

And Broomfield's elevation is 5420 ft. So the bird, if that is what caused it, was only 6-7,000ft. in the air.

Spacepope wrote:

mga707 wrote:

mkorpal333 wrote:

The strike (assuming it was) was at about 12,000 feet. Plenty of birds can fly that high.

And Broomfield's elevation is 5420 ft. So the bird, if that is what caused it, was only 6-7,000ft. in the air.

Here in Colorado we are smack dab in the middle of Sandhill crane migration.

Spacepope wrote:

mga707 wrote:

mkorpal333 wrote:

The strike (assuming it was) was at about 12,000 feet. Plenty of birds can fly that high.

And Broomfield's elevation is 5420 ft. So the bird, if that is what caused it, was only 6-7,000ft. in the air.

Here in Colorado we are smack dab in the middle of Sandhill crane migration.

StarAC17 wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Would this be an NTSB or FAA investigation?

NTSB.

I don't think the FAA directly investigates accidents or incidents primarily. The NTSB can enroll the FAA to investigate UA if any negligence is suspected.

Aaron747 wrote:

mga707 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Given the news coverage of this particular house, UA Public Relations will likely reach out to the individual as well and give them the 411 on how best to get his truck replaced and may choose to forego the insurance runaround. It's been a while since I've worked with our insurance teams but I seem to recall that although flight operations hull loss and human liability can't be self-insured, damage to property on the ground can be.

United could have a PR 'win' if they buy this homeowner a loaded 2021 Ram.

That would be a cheaper PR win than paying several PR staff salaries for the year.

OldB747Driver wrote:

Yeastbeast wrote:

I am a totally unknowledgeable internet nerd. My question on that video is: I'm assuming the flight crew would have the fuel shut off by that point, why is that section still glowing orange? Residual heat? Residual fuel still pouring in through a cut fuel line? Just wondering.

There are other "consumables" that would burn if the temperature is hot enough - some who are intimately familiar with that particular engine are saying the residual fuel, hydraulic fluid, engine oil and the thrust reverser cascade assembly, which is a carbon fiber component.

FlyHossD wrote:

OldB747Driver wrote:

Yeastbeast wrote:

I am a totally unknowledgeable internet nerd. My question on that video is: I'm assuming the flight crew would have the fuel shut off by that point, why is that section still glowing orange? Residual heat? Residual fuel still pouring in through a cut fuel line? Just wondering.

There are other "consumables" that would burn if the temperature is hot enough - some who are intimately familiar with that particular engine are saying the residual fuel, hydraulic fluid, engine oil and the thrust reverser cascade assembly, which is a carbon fiber component.

Engine oil would be my guess.

And there are plenty of geese around Denver. I passed through DEN 2 days ago and observed Canadian Geese overflying the airport.

TWA772LR wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

OldB747Driver wrote:

There are other "consumables" that would burn if the temperature is hot enough - some who are intimately familiar with that particular engine are saying the residual fuel, hydraulic fluid, engine oil and the thrust reverser cascade assembly, which is a carbon fiber component.

Engine oil would be my guess.

And there are plenty of geese around Denver. I passed through DEN 2 days ago and observed Canadian Geese overflying the airport.

Geese are EVERYWHERE in Denver. You can see flocks of almost 100 of them miles away. I live across the highway from Centennial airport south of Denver and the geese love to congregate under those runways. I swear an incident is bound to happen with geese in Denver.

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

sxf24 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

If a piece of an airplane engine falls from the sky and lands in your backyard, are you allowed to keep it?

I hope so!

WayexTDI wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

Well, it depends on a few factors:
- if his truck is recent or has a loan on it, then it has full coverage. His insurance would reimburse him for the truck (under the full coverage policy) then file with the at-fault party and deal with them directly, returning his deductible in the process;
- if his truck just has liability, or if he doesn't want to involve his insurance (not sure why he wouldn't), then he can file directly with UAL's insurance. This is most likely a lengthy process.

Spacepope wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

Would the homeowner who (most likely) lost his truck be automatically covered by United’s insurance or is he SOL with his own insurance? Wonder what the policies around these situations are.

Well, it depends on a few factors:
- if his truck is recent or has a loan on it, then it has full coverage. His insurance would reimburse him for the truck (under the full coverage policy) then file with the at-fault party and deal with them directly, returning his deductible in the process;
- if his truck just has liability, or if he doesn't want to involve his insurance (not sure why he wouldn't), then he can file directly with UAL's insurance. This is most likely a lengthy process.

There is always the concern that the property owner will be penalized by their insurance for United’s raining down of debris, through absolutely no fault of their own. They can also reasonably infer that United forced new hardships on them by this. Colorado people know they probably have already contacted someone like Azar to ensure they get what they feel is owed to them.

nm2582 wrote:

with regards to the truck replacement... given the rarity of parts falling out of the sky from airplanes with uncontained engine failures, united would be better off sending a nice limo to ferry the owner to a dealership of his choice to pick out a new pickup of his choice - and let him keep the cowling to hang in his garage (or whatever) as a memento, too. a couple free round trips for the family to round out the deal, and I'd think most folks would be quite happy with their "fortune" and not cause any legal challenges.

CALTECH wrote:

Bird Strike is the word....
Blood all over the inlet....
Haven't seen the photos yet....

303dk wrote:

True. And the service ceiling on a Canada Goose is 29,000 ft

gwrudolph wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

look rather bad in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6wgXNSwCDA

Is the engine still powering or just windmilling in this video. It looks like it is still powering?

lowbank wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

look rather bad in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6wgXNSwCDA

Is the engine still powering or just windmilling in this video. It looks like it is still powering?

Looks like a fan blade off to me, the engine is windmilling in the unbalanced condition that occurs.

RyanairGuru wrote:

...
In this instance I agree with those above, United PR and legal will be all over it. Give the home owner a brand new Ram, coupled with a covenant not to sue. Probably a lot cheaper for United in the long run, as some lawyer will be sure to file an emotional distress claim.

OKCDCA wrote:

Was it ever reported how many passengers were on board? Listening to the ATC recordings, number of souls was asked for but it didn’t sound like the pilots had time to report it...

That leads to my next question: How are passengers who might not want to get on the replacement aircraft treated in this situation? I assume UA will put up anyone who might not want to get back on a plane right away. How long though before they tell you to either catch a flight to HNL or back to your original destination if you were connecting in DEN? I assume they’ll cover any costs for passengers who might have missed out on plans in HNL if they didn’t want to get on the plane?

mawelsh wrote:

CNN anchor summarized event as "heavy engine failure" after hearing "...United 328 heavy, mayday. Aircraft just experienced an engine failure..."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/02/2 ... nr-vpx.cnn

tcfc424 wrote:

Lawyers are expensive. If they can give this guy $100K and cut the majority of the lawyers out, they'll save hundreds of thousands...and gain some goodwill points at the same time. You don't want the Denver (or Broomfield) city councils raising a stink about flight paths. I know a city council would have a huge uphill battle trying to change air traffic routes...but that would involve even more lawyers and more cost. Honestly, if they could get out of this for under a million, it'd probably be a significant win.

ubeema wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Given the news coverage of this particular house, UA Public Relations will likely reach out to the individual as well and give them the 411 on how best to get his truck replaced and may choose to forego the insurance runaround. It's been a while since I've worked with our insurance teams but I seem to recall that although flight operations hull loss and human liability can't be self-insured, damage to property on the ground can be.

Fair enough. Being proactive given the publicity is likely the approach that will be taken . . .

Agree with alasizon. UA priority should be to minimize lawsuits and PR disaster. Letting homeowners figure this out on their own will cost them money and time. Deductible could be multiple thousands. This is what generally leads to frustration and lawsuits.

Spacepope wrote:

OldB747Driver wrote:

Just from a quick gander, reasonable possibility of cowling/de-ice overpressure precipitating catastrophic engine failure?

The kevlar shroud that surrounds the first stage fan blades (as well as the blades themselves AND they're still rotating in the video) seems to imply the failure was external to the compression/ combustion cycle even though the hot section seems to be burning, most likely from the interrupted cooling flow in the normal combustion process. Also the front end of the cowl appears to have separated in its entirety, not shredded as the result of internal failure.

One thing about being on this site for a long time is you tend to know who really knows their stuff, and in this case CALTECH really has good insider info. If he says bird strike, I would believe him.

Likely scenario is bird causes fan blade to detach, causing this whole wobbly cascade of nacelle disintegration and possibly also downstream ingestion of meat and other engine parts.

mga707 wrote:

And Broomfield's elevation is 5420 ft. So the bird or birds, if that is what caused it, was/were only 6-7,000ft. in the air.

CALTECH wrote:

Hearing you could see all the way through the engine front to back, that much blade damage.Will see the photos tomorrow. Seems like something of the bird/debris went into the core. Doesn't take much to damage the blades and destroy the core. Everything shells out.
Memories of the Honolulu 777 engine incident, that was a fan blade crack not caught......

http://aerossurance.com/safety-manageme ... w4077-fbo/

MIflyer12 wrote:

mga707 wrote:

And Broomfield's elevation is 5420 ft. So the bird or birds, if that is what caused it, was/were only 6-7,000ft. in the air.

So you think any bird can fly over Mt Everest because it will only be 1,000 feet 'in the air' at 30K feet?