Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Amp1
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:55 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Amp1 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Would reducing the identified material weaknesses in the inlet / fan casing interface help?


Yes that would be another way to solve the problem but it would be prohibitively expensive. An intake could never be a containment zone so the blade would have to be prevented from moving forward. This would require a new fan case with a feature to catch the blade, it would have to be FBO tested and certified and then a new case manufactured and fitted to all engines. The cost would be astronomical.


I follow re cost and containment, but I meant in reference to the UA 1175 report suggesting that the underperforming CFRP in the inlet bulkhead could initiate inlet separation.


I don’t know the details of this design but I think you will always have a problem when a blade leaves the containment zone before it has slowed down sufficiently.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14005
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:58 am

Amp1 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Amp1 wrote:

Yes that would be another way to solve the problem but it would be prohibitively expensive. An intake could never be a containment zone so the blade would have to be prevented from moving forward. This would require a new fan case with a feature to catch the blade, it would have to be FBO tested and certified and then a new case manufactured and fitted to all engines. The cost would be astronomical.


I follow re cost and containment, but I meant in reference to the UA 1175 report suggesting that the underperforming CFRP in the inlet bulkhead could initiate inlet separation.


I don’t know the details of this design but I think you will always have a problem when a blade leaves the containment zone before it has slowed down sufficiently.


The UA 1175 report said that in Boeing modeling and in the P&W certification tests the aluminum bulkhead did not have a problem, but CFRP was later found to and it was included in the production inlet.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Amp1
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:11 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Amp1 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I follow re cost and containment, but I meant in reference to the UA 1175 report suggesting that the underperforming CFRP in the inlet bulkhead could initiate inlet separation.


I don’t know the details of this design but I think you will always have a problem when a blade leaves the containment zone before it has slowed down sufficiently.


The UA 1175 report said that in Boeing modeling and in the P&W certification tests the aluminum bulkhead did not have a problem, but CFRP was later found to and it was included in the production inlet.


Perhaps the aluminium bulkhead arrests the forward motion of the blade whereas the CFRP doesn’t. I’m sure they’ll be looking at it if it is the case but would still be an expensive and time consuming mod to incorporate.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:25 pm

Max Q wrote:
catiii wrote:
Max Q wrote:
This crew handled the emergency efficiently and with great competence



The initial radio transmission stumbles are irrelevant, they got the job done. Interestingly this is a very common reaction when you’re put under high stress


When BA 38 lost both engines approaching LHR the pilot used the call sign he’d just used on a previous flight, as stated earlier similar call sign confusion happened on ‘Sully’s’ flight


I remember, after shutting down an engine in the MD80 inadvertently using ‘Continental one’ as our call sign when initially declaring an emergency with ATC, that’s the call sign we commonly used in the simulator!


I corrected myself, point is it really doesn’t matter, the adrenaline is flowing, a lot is going on that almost never happens outside of the sim where you expect it (90% of airline flying is uneventful) and it takes a few minutes to take stock, look at the big picture, switch gears from the normal routine and start dealing with the problem


This crew did all that and an excellent job, any criticism of their radio procedure is derived from ignorance and a total lack of comprehension regarding the job

You shut down an engine inadvertently? Or did you inadvertently use the wrong call sign.

If the former I want to hear that story!

I didn’t write that very well did I ?

No we shut down the engine deliberately due to a complete loss of oil and subsequent oil pressure

I used the wrong call sign inadvertently

It seemed pretty clear to me what you were trying to say.
Captain Kevin
 
mm320cap
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:27 pm

Blimpie wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:

Talking about the communications in this incident, I also thought back to US1549 and just listened to the recordings.
That is professionalism at its finest, efficient, concise.
Sully truly is a good pilot.

The UA328 pilot on the radio said his callsign wrong 2 times before the engine failed...and when it failed he was all over the radio instead of on his checklist.
I expect pilots paid 300K a year to show a little more focus than that, I'm certainly not going to applaud for not screwing up a very manageable situation.


Are you an airline pilot? What’s your profession “Captain”?


Upthread, he stated he flies for UA B787

I will leave it at that, and am staying out of it.


He was criticizing a retired UAL 787 Captain, not saying he was one. Another douchey move by him
 
catiii
Posts: 3834
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:30 pm

Max Q wrote:
catiii wrote:
Max Q wrote:
This crew handled the emergency efficiently and with great competence



The initial radio transmission stumbles are irrelevant, they got the job done. Interestingly this is a very common reaction when you’re put under high stress


When BA 38 lost both engines approaching LHR the pilot used the call sign he’d just used on a previous flight, as stated earlier similar call sign confusion happened on ‘Sully’s’ flight


I remember, after shutting down an engine in the MD80 inadvertently using ‘Continental one’ as our call sign when initially declaring an emergency with ATC, that’s the call sign we commonly used in the simulator!


I corrected myself, point is it really doesn’t matter, the adrenaline is flowing, a lot is going on that almost never happens outside of the sim where you expect it (90% of airline flying is uneventful) and it takes a few minutes to take stock, look at the big picture, switch gears from the normal routine and start dealing with the problem


This crew did all that and an excellent job, any criticism of their radio procedure is derived from ignorance and a total lack of comprehension regarding the job


You shut down an engine inadvertently? Or did you inadvertently use the wrong call sign.

If the former I want to hear that story!



I didn’t write that very well did I ?

No we shut down the engine deliberately due to a complete loss of oil and subsequent oil pressure

I used the wrong call sign inadvertently


Ha thought that was the case. Still a good story either way.
 
gobears19
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:25 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:08 pm

2175301 wrote:
The FAA met days before the UA 328 engine failure on reducing the engine inspection interval for the P&W 4000 series engines from 6500 cycles to less than that - with a recommendation from P&W to inspect the fan blades every 1000 cycles.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/24/politics ... index.html


6,500 seems too infrequent to me, that's what, every 9 years? They're saying (prior to this incident) that if no signs of stress are found today on a 20 year old engine, they'll have a look again in a decade?
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:35 am

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-mov ... 1614249006
(paywall)
Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14005
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:18 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006
(paywall)
Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures


Aha, directly related to the NTSB findings in the UA 1175 event. Looks like they may have been slow to act.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
889091
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:35 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-moved-to-replace-777-engine-covers-before-recent-failures-11614249006
(paywall)
Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures


Sorry, unable to read the said article due to paywall, but what did they mean by "Engine Covers"? Nacelles only, cowlings only, or both?
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:50 pm

same for me, i only read reposts.
Boeing Co. was planning to strengthen protective engine covers on its 777 jets months before a pair of recent serious failures, including one near Denver last weekend, according to an internal Federal Aviation Administration document.

The plane maker and regulator had been discussing potential fixes even longer—for about two years, according to people familiar with the matter. The talks began after two failures in 2018, one on a 777 operated by United Airlines Holdings Inc. and the other on a Southwest Airlines Co. 737.

Because potential modifications to 777 external engine covers, commonly known as cowlings, had various shortcomings, “Boeing has decided to redesign the fan cowl instead of trying to modify existing fan cowls to address both the structural strength concerns” and moisture issues, according to the internal FAA document reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

“Boeing will be manufacturing new fan cowls and providing service instructions for operators to remove and replace the fan cowls,” according to the document, part of a routine Aug. 6, 2020, update on efforts under way at the agency’s Seattle-area offices. Boeing and the FAA declined to comment on the engine-cover plan’s status Wednesday.

Separately on Thursday, the FAA said Boeing would pay $6.6 million for failing to meet its obligations under a 2015 settlement and to resolve two enforcement cases.
 
DEN-HNL
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:38 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:56 pm

Image
A curiosity of mine since Saturday. What is this part?
 
DEN-HNL
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:38 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:00 pm

Another view

Image
 
dragon6172
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Feb 27, 2021 8:09 pm

DEN-HNL wrote:
Image
A curiosity of mine since Saturday. What is this part?

Bleed air duct of some sort. Probably what provided bleed air for the inlet ring anti-ice
Phrogs Phorever
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:14 am

dragon6172 wrote:
DEN-HNL wrote:
Image
A curiosity of mine since Saturday. What is this part?

Bleed air duct of some sort. Probably what provided bleed air for the inlet ring anti-ice


Seems to be. Right where it enters the inlet cowl. Matches up pretty close.....

Image
You are here.
 
CaptainHaresh
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:00 pm

novarupta wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Can some more Captains or Pilots chime in on which way to turn with a failed engine?


It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:49 pm

CaptainHaresh wrote:
novarupta wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Can some more Captains or Pilots chime in on which way to turn with a failed engine?


It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?

Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but why would one wing be under more load than the other during a turn? Other than the transients of rolling in and out (each of which would load opposite wings), would the load not be the same through both wings?

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
pugman211
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:34 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:
novarupta wrote:

It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?

Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but why would one wing be under more load than the other during a turn? Other than the transients of rolling in and out (each of which would load opposite wings), would the load not be the same through both wings?

V/F


I think he means because 1 wing had a dead engine on it perhaps?
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:01 pm

CaptainHaresh wrote:
novarupta wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:
Can some more Captains or Pilots chime in on which way to turn with a failed engine?


It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?



Granted, the largest thing I’ve flown is 19 seats (Twin Otter), and my company SOP generally stated to avoid turning into the dead side...if you noticed I used the term “As Far as Practicable” - meaning you are expected as crew to evaluate the situation in its entirety and maneuver as required (meaning it’s not totally hard and fast not to turn to the dead side, just that if you can avoid it, then avoid it).

However the rest of what you said makes zero sense, and the photos you show don’t help your case either. I’ve never heard of wing spars getting damaged from shrapnel resulting from an uncontained failure, all cases I’ve seen being punctured skins/fairings or dented slats/flaps. The kind of loads that a main spar has to bear, I’d like to think shrapnel damage that’s enough to cause it to fail is a very unlikely possibility.

That being said, UAL328’s crew did a great job in handling this emergency, they kept control of the airplane, brought it back to a safe landing, can’t ask for a better outcome.
 
CaptainHaresh
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:14 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:
novarupta wrote:

It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?

Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but why would one wing be under more load than the other during a turn? Other than the transients of rolling in and out (each of which would load opposite wings), would the load not be the same through both wings?

V/F


It would work in two ways.
Independently, the outboard wing in a turn will be faster than the inboard, doing more work. The difference is significant enough that at low speeds this could cause a spin.
Together, both wings would be fighting against the working engine to achieve the turn rather than let the thrust assymetry help them take the turn, increasing wing loading on both wings, including the damaged wing.

novarupta wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:
novarupta wrote:

It’s been answered a few times up-thread already, but generally with multi-engined airplanes (not using centreline thrust), you’d want to avoid turning into the dead side as far as practicable. That’s due to the higher risk of getting into an unrecoverable situation when turning to the side of the failed engine.


That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?



Granted, the largest thing I’ve flown is 19 seats (Twin Otter), and my company SOP generally stated to avoid turning into the dead side...if you noticed I used the term “As Far as Practicable” - meaning you are expected as crew to evaluate the situation in its entirety and maneuver as required (meaning it’s not totally hard and fast not to turn to the dead side, just that if you can avoid it, then avoid it).

However the rest of what you said makes zero sense, and the photos you show don’t help your case either. I’ve never heard of wing spars getting damaged from shrapnel resulting from an uncontained failure, all cases I’ve seen being punctured skins/fairings or dented slats/flaps. The kind of loads that a main spar has to bear, I’d like to think shrapnel damage that’s enough to cause it to fail is a very unlikely possibility.

That being said, UAL328’s crew did a great job in handling this emergency, they kept control of the airplane, brought it back to a safe landing, can’t ask for a better outcome.


The Qantas A380 wing spar was damaged and had to receive extensive repairs.
In an uncontained failure of wing-mounted engines, it is very likely for engine debris ejected with high energy to damage the wing.
Anything that flies upwards is likely to strike that wing from below.
It would be unlucky but quite possible for a turbine rotor to sever a wing spar, compromising its structural integrity. If it were to happen, pilots may not even notice it unless through a puncture hole on top of the wing.
Most pilots would not be able to tell the location of the spars on the wing, nor the implications of such damages.
Engine vibrations and fire would also lower the structural margin of the wing.
As insignificant as a turning decision may seem, with a damaged wing it could lead to a fatal outcome.
Until they could land it and inspect it, they would have noway of knowing the true extent of the damages.

I don't think that the UAL328 crew have done any better than any other crew would do.
They had to work harder that day, but I don't see this kind of damage leading to a fatal outcome..
I would have been less critical if the communications were better.
Consider the fact that he couldn't be bothered to remember his callsign properly while mumbling his readbacks in a sleepy voice, and then when the dump hit the fan, wated time shounting nonsense on the radio instead of focusing on the failure.
It didn't come over as a very concentrated and alert crew.
This may be incorrect and may be taken out of context, it's just an opinion on what it sounds like.
Last edited by CaptainHaresh on Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2243
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:26 pm

CaptainHaresh wrote:
I don't think that the UAL328 crew have done any better than any other crew would do. They had to work harder that day for sure.
I would have been less critical if the communications were better.
Consider the fact that he couldn't be bothered to remember his callsign properly while mumbling his readbacks in a sleepy voice, and then when the dump hit the fan, shouted nonsense on the radio instead of focusing on the failure.
It didn't come over as a very concentrated and alert crew.
This may be incorrect and may be taken out of context, it's just an opinion on what it sounds like.


Communications is at the bottom of the three things to do in this scenario. Everyone knew who they were and missing "heavy" sometimes is nbd. Unless you've experienced uncontained failures on a twin jet aircraft, you have no clue how you would have done in the same scenario. They ran the check lists, flew the aircraft and greased the landing.

There's nothing in the recording that indicates a lack of alertness or concentration except hairsplitting about "how they sound." Who cares how they sound? The measure of the crew is the how the emergency resolved. It resolved the best way possible, period.
Last edited by SonomaFlyer on Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DualQual
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Feb 28, 2021 11:28 pm

CaptainHaresh wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:

That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?

Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but why would one wing be under more load than the other during a turn? Other than the transients of rolling in and out (each of which would load opposite wings), would the load not be the same through both wings?

V/F


It would work in two ways.
Independently, the outboard wing in a turn will be faster than the inboard, doing more work. The difference is significant enough that at low speeds this could cause a spin.
Together, both wings would be fighting against the working engine to achieve the turn rather than let the thrust assymetry help them take the turn, increasing wing loading on both wings, including the damaged wing.

novarupta wrote:
CaptainHaresh wrote:

That is only applicable for a light twin piston.
For transport category aircraft, obstacle clearance and aircraft condition are the primary considerations.

For a standard engine failure it doesn’t matter which way you turn as long as you stay within published bank angles.

When you had an uncontained engine failure and there is potential wing damage, it’s a bad idea to put more stress on that wing by asking it to do more lifting.
Use common sense. A good pilot should account for all possibilities, and one of them is a sheared spar.

When an engine failure is uncontained and spectacular, potential wing damage should be a primary consideration when making turn decisions.


For purposes of illustration:

Image

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/ ... rd-walton/

Image

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20170930-1

Image

https://simpleflying.com/antonov-an-124 ... e-faliure/

Ever heard of the expression on a wing and a prayer?



Granted, the largest thing I’ve flown is 19 seats (Twin Otter), and my company SOP generally stated to avoid turning into the dead side...if you noticed I used the term “As Far as Practicable” - meaning you are expected as crew to evaluate the situation in its entirety and maneuver as required (meaning it’s not totally hard and fast not to turn to the dead side, just that if you can avoid it, then avoid it).

However the rest of what you said makes zero sense, and the photos you show don’t help your case either. I’ve never heard of wing spars getting damaged from shrapnel resulting from an uncontained failure, all cases I’ve seen being punctured skins/fairings or dented slats/flaps. The kind of loads that a main spar has to bear, I’d like to think shrapnel damage that’s enough to cause it to fail is a very unlikely possibility.

That being said, UAL328’s crew did a great job in handling this emergency, they kept control of the airplane, brought it back to a safe landing, can’t ask for a better outcome.


The Qantas A380 wing spar was damaged and had to receive extensive repairs.
In an uncontained failure of wing-mounted engines, it is very likely for engine debris ejected with high energy to damage the wing.
Anything that flies upwards is likely to strike that wing from below.
It would be unlucky but quite possible for a turbine rotor to sever a wing spar, compromising its structural integrity. If it were to happen, pilots may not even notice it unless through a puncture hole on top of the wing.
Most pilots would not be able to tell the location of the spars on the wing, nor the implications of such damages.
Engine vibrations and fire would also lower the structural margin of the wing.
As insignificant as a turning decision may seem, with a damaged wing it could lead to a fatal outcome.
Until they could land it and inspect it, they would have noway of knowing the true extent of the damages.

I don't think that the UAL328 crew have done any better than any other crew would do.
They had to work harder that day, but I don't see this kind of damage leading to a fatal outcome..
I would have been less critical if the communications were better.
Consider the fact that he couldn't be bothered to remember his callsign properly while mumbling his readbacks in a sleepy voice, and then when the dump hit the fan, wated time shounting nonsense on the radio instead of focusing on the failure.
It didn't come over as a very concentrated and alert crew.
This may be incorrect and may be taken out of context, it's just an opinion on what it sounds like.


You really need to quit while you’re behind. Seriously.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7401
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:52 am

It would work in two ways.
Independently, the outboard wing in a turn will be faster than the inboard, doing more work. The difference is significant enough that at low speeds this could cause a spin.
Together, both wings would be fighting against the working engine to achieve the turn rather than let the thrust assymetry help them take the turn, increasing wing loading on both wings, including the damaged wing.


Explain this bit of aerodynamics, please? How does the outboard do more “work” in a coordinated turn? Rudder is the yaw control surface, true? Do planes, in coordinated flight, spin in low speed turns? Second, how do the wings “fight” asymmetric thrust? Has the rudder been eliminated in the B777?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:44 am

We don't know what actually happened at the flight deck, so let's wait for the preliminary report.
However after reading all the harsh remarks about a view about the" not optimal" Aircraft-ATC communications, the same could be said about all the preliminary positive remarks about the flight crew : "The crew did a perfect job", "Fantastic", etc. We simply don't know yet.

They were lucky that nothing structural was hit by the flying engine parts, the flight crew performed their duty, an engine failure/fire NNP and land asap, the relevant details will emerge later..
IMHO, that's their (well payed) job : stay calm, perform the SOP"s and land asap, period.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
AndoAv8R
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:27 pm

An interesting that I noticed while watching it (I saw them from the ground until they made the turn, it was north of us), they did level off momentarily then had just resumed climb when the blade failed.
 
DUSdude
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:20 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:32 pm

AndoAv8R wrote:
An interesting that I noticed while watching it (I saw them from the ground until they made the turn, it was north of us), they did level off momentarily then had just resumed climb when the blade failed.


Yes, that's when you would expect to have a blade failure (if there is an undiagnosed flaw in the material): whenever there is a change in the power setting.
 
N47
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:38 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:44 am

For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure. It gives you an idea of what goes on in the flight deck during these events.

https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI
 
smokeybandit
Topic Author
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:01 am

 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14005
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:24 am

smokeybandit wrote:


Impressed by AP's adherence to factual reporting in that article - they actually emphasized how few 777s use this particular engine.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
MrBretz
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:22 am

N47 wrote:
For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure. It gives you an idea of what goes on in the flight deck during these events.

https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI


This was a very fascinating video. The pilot emphasized being able to hand fly an airplane. He says if it had happened further out over the ocean, they probably wouldn't have made it.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:59 am

N47 wrote:
For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure.
https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI


UA1175 was a real handful according to that captain.

It also had more remaining cowling stuck out in the breeze than UA328 and at higher speed & altitude.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:54 am

N47 wrote:
For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure. It gives you an idea of what goes on in the flight deck during these events.

https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI


That video sent a very cold chill down my spine...... Lord have mercy UA 1175 could have easily rolled over on them at that altitude and the struggle the captain talks about just to keep the plane in the air while at the same time minimizing the vibrations as much as possible.

Whether people believe in God on not in addition to the pilots skills there was divine intervention that help them save UA1175, I never realize just how challenging those 200 miles were those pilots fought with that airplane the whole way down to the runway.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:29 am

1175 could not have survived if they were much more than 200 miles from HNL according to what I’ve heard. The main problems were vibration and drag from the damaged engine. They would have been better off if it had just cleanly separated from the wing.

Has anyone ever considered a mechanism to safely jettison an engine in that kind of situation? I claim no knowledge of how this might be done, but would it be useful in ETOPS situations?
 
User avatar
TWA302
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:17 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:13 pm

smokeybandit wrote:


2,979 flights worked out to four years with no inspection.

Article states normal inspection is after 6,500?? I am no pilot or mechanic but that seems insanely long. Can anyone educate me? Does this mean D checks or what?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/united-planes-fan-blade-had-multiple-cracks-last-inspected-4-years-ago-ntsb
 
jayunited
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:46 pm

This morning I went back and watch the youtube interview video again with the pilot from UA1175, one part that really stuck out to me was when he was describing the explosion UA1175 experience followed by such a rapid loss of speed he almost hit the glare shield. And I kept thinking UA1175 was cruising at 36,000 feet, I can't even begin to imagine what the pilots on UA328 felt because they were climbing with the nose facing up and if that engine explosion caused the same rapid reduction in air speed as it did on UA1175, the pilots on UA328 didn't have much speed or altitude to keep the aircraft from stalling.

I don't know if any pilot on this thread would dare estimate how much time UA328 had before entering an unrecoverable stall?

One last thing from the video that stood out was it took 30 seconds after the engine exploded on UA1175 for the pilots instruments to show them which engine had actually failed. Even though all the bells, whistles and alerts were going off in the cockpit it took a full 30 seconds before the instruments for the right engine failed and stopped working.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14005
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:04 pm

jayunited wrote:
This morning I went back and watch the youtube interview video again with the pilot from UA1175, one part that really stuck out to me was when he was describing the explosion UA1175 experience followed by such a rapid loss of speed he almost hit the glare shield. And I kept thinking UA1175 was cruising at 36,000 feet, I can't even begin to imagine what the pilots on UA328 felt because they were climbing with the nose facing up and if that engine explosion caused the same rapid reduction in air speed as it did on UA1175, the pilots on UA328 didn't have much speed or altitude to keep the aircraft from stalling.

I don't know if any pilot on this thread would dare estimate how much time UA328 had before entering an unrecoverable stall?

One last thing from the video that stood out was it took 30 seconds after the engine exploded on UA1175 for the pilots instruments to show them which engine had actually failed. Even though all the bells, whistles and alerts were going off in the cockpit it took a full 30 seconds before the instruments for the right engine failed and stopped working.


Sudden loss of thrust at mach .83 will deliver a much more pronounced jolt than climbing out at 220-250 knots.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:33 pm

TWA302 wrote:
smokeybandit wrote:


2,979 flights worked out to four years with no inspection.

Article states normal inspection is after 6,500?? I am no pilot or mechanic but that seems insanely long. Can anyone educate me? Does this mean D checks or what?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/united-planes-fan-blade-had-multiple-cracks-last-inspected-4-years-ago-ntsb


Based off the old standard of 6500 cycles-If the airframe did 2 flights a day, every day- there would be almost 9 years between thermal acoustic inspections. If the frame averaged 4 flights a day, it would be about 4.5 years between inspections.


We would probably need an experienced AMT to tell us how invasive this inspection is, but based off the time interval, it isn’t quick or cheap to do, so it looks like this is designed to line up with an aircraft Heavy Maintenance Visit. Based off the engine failures, the inspection doesn’t do what it is supposed to accomplish- it’s not verifying the structural integrity of the fan blades for the next 6500 cycles. In light of that, the FAA has revised the inspection time frame to every 1000 cycles- with all PW4000-112 engines getting an inspection before returned to service.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1661
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:35 pm

Have any of those engines/airframes returned to service after inspection yet?
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2165
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:49 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
This morning I went back and watch the youtube interview video again with the pilot from UA1175, one part that really stuck out to me was when he was describing the explosion UA1175 experience followed by such a rapid loss of speed he almost hit the glare shield. And I kept thinking UA1175 was cruising at 36,000 feet, I can't even begin to imagine what the pilots on UA328 felt because they were climbing with the nose facing up and if that engine explosion caused the same rapid reduction in air speed as it did on UA1175, the pilots on UA328 didn't have much speed or altitude to keep the aircraft from stalling.

I don't know if any pilot on this thread would dare estimate how much time UA328 had before entering an unrecoverable stall?

One last thing from the video that stood out was it took 30 seconds after the engine exploded on UA1175 for the pilots instruments to show them which engine had actually failed. Even though all the bells, whistles and alerts were going off in the cockpit it took a full 30 seconds before the instruments for the right engine failed and stopped working.


Sudden loss of thrust at mach .83 will deliver a much more pronounced jolt than climbing out at 220-250 knots.


While both incidents would be violent, there's a BIG difference between the airspeeds at the altitudes both 1175 and 328 happened to be at when the blade or blades failed.

1175 was still at cruise altitude* and without a huge margin between stall and over-speed (a.k.a., the "coffin corner"). 328, on the other hand was only at 13,000' but indicating a high climb speed (probably 280 to over 300 KIAS) and with more margin to stall speed.

Please see this link for an explanation about coffin corner: https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly ... -mmo-meet/

*The margin between MMO and Vs would be less at the beginning of the flight when the aircraft is heavier.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:47 pm

Aircellist wrote:
Have any of those engines/airframes returned to service after inspection yet?



Based of the NTSB report from UA1175, PMUA 777 fan blades are sent to Pratt and Whitney in Connecticut for the Thermal Acoustic Inspection. It also appears that Korean Air sends their 777 fan blades to Pratt and Whitney in Connecticut for inspection as well (a re inspection of the TAI results was completed after UA1175 and resulted in the recall of 2 fan blades, 1 from UA and 1 from KE). At the PW Facility (in 2018) they had 2 machines to do the inspection - but not the blade prep, of which both may be used or one may be used. When both were used, the inspectors reported they could get 12-14 blades done a shift, with one machine 6-8 blades a shift. Up to 3 shifts a day. We’re talking 2 shifts with both machines running to do the TAI inspection on 1 engine.

So a day and a half at full steam, with 3 shifts to do the actual inspection on 1 airplane worth of fan blades, not including the time to ship the blades to Connecticut, Prep the blades for inspection, and return the blades to the airline for reinstallation on the engine and airframe. Doesn’t sound like a quick return to service for the majority of the fleet.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA18IA092
 
zuckie13
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:58 am

aklrno wrote:
1175 could not have survived if they were much more than 200 miles from HNL according to what I’ve heard. The main problems were vibration and drag from the damaged engine. They would have been better off if it had just cleanly separated from the wing.

Has anyone ever considered a mechanism to safely jettison an engine in that kind of situation? I claim no knowledge of how this might be done, but would it be useful in ETOPS situations?


That would be a tough thing to do.

First - You'd need a mechanism that is foolproof - cant' have an engine come off unless you absolutely want it to.
Second - to do it you need to sever the rather strong mechanical connection that holds it on the wing. Not sure anyone would be happy if you have pyrotechnic bolts on commercial airliners.
Third - you'd need to also - simultaneously without fail sever everything else connected to the engine cleanly. This includes the various control and sensor wiring going to the engine, plus things like fuel lines - which need to not just be severed, but sealed. So more pyrotechnic bolts, and guillotine cutters to break anything. If you get this wrong you can make things worse as the engine rips other bits off or something.

I really don't see this happening anytime soon.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1078
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:13 am

jayunited wrote:
N47 wrote:
For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure. It gives you an idea of what goes on in the flight deck during these events.

https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI


That video sent a very cold chill down my spine...... Lord have mercy UA 1175 could have easily rolled over on them at that altitude and the struggle the captain talks about just to keep the plane in the air while at the same time minimizing the vibrations as much as possible.

Whether people believe in God on not in addition to the pilots skills there was divine intervention that help them save UA1175, I never realize just how challenging those 200 miles were those pilots fought with that airplane the whole way down to the runway.


This is why pilots get paid what they get paid....it isn’t for the easy days.

A simulation of these two events should be saved to see if a pilotless cockpit would have survived.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10282
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:20 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
A simulation of these two events should be saved to see if a pilotless cockpit would have survived.


Yeah, you could do that, or you could do what anybody who watched the interview already knows: assume the answer is "No." In fact, a single-pilot cockpit probably couldn't have saved the first one. Given that the automation had no clue what to do, I think the answer is obvious. The reality is that the airlines/manufacturers, etc., are willing to risk the sacrifice of an every-seat-filled 777 to prove the merits of automation. It's insane. In fact, given the crap stick and rudder skills at some carriers, and the absence of any real knowledge or experience of those in the right seat of the pointy end at others, it's not unreasonable to assume that at at least some carriers, this aircraft would be being fished from the bottom of the Pacific, with nobody having any idea what happened. And then the armchair analysts, safe on dry land, would say, well it was pilot error; they should have just activated the blah-blah automation.
 
friendlyskies22
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 4:47 am

Jayunited:
One last thing from the video that stood out was it took 30 seconds after the engine exploded on UA1175 for the pilots instruments to show them which engine had actually failed. Even though all the bells, whistles and alerts were going off in the cockpit it took a full 30 seconds before the instruments for the right engine failed and stopped working.
....
I'll say it again, an engine camera would have shown the pilots instantly what the issue was...
 
musang
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:37 am

jayunited wrote:
N47 wrote:
For those interested, here is a recent interview with the captain of UA1175 about his experience with the engine failure. It gives you an idea of what goes on in the flight deck during these events.

https://youtu.be/J7_lzeY23dI


That video sent a very cold chill down my spine...... Lord have mercy UA 1175 could have easily rolled over on them at that altitude and the struggle the captain talks about just to keep the plane in the air while at the same time minimizing the vibrations as much as possible.

Whether people believe in God on not in addition to the pilots skills there was divine intervention that help them save UA1175, I never realize just how challenging those 200 miles were those pilots fought with that airplane the whole way down to the runway.


There's only devine intervention if you DO believe in some sort of "higher entity"! As far as I'm concerned it was all crew intervention.
 
musang
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:45 am

"those in the right seat of the pointy end "

Apart from supersonics, name a transport aircraft on which the nose is pointier than the tailcone!
 
musang
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:06 am

zuckie13 wrote:
aklrno wrote:
1175 could not have survived if they were much more than 200 miles from HNL according to what I’ve heard. The main problems were vibration and drag from the damaged engine. They would have been better off if it had just cleanly separated from the wing.

Has anyone ever considered a mechanism to safely jettison an engine in that kind of situation? I claim no knowledge of how this might be done, but would it be useful in ETOPS situations?


That would be a tough thing to do.

First - You'd need a mechanism that is foolproof - cant' have an engine come off unless you absolutely want it to.
Second - to do it you need to sever the rather strong mechanical connection that holds it on the wing. Not sure anyone would be happy if you have pyrotechnic bolts on commercial airliners.
Third - you'd need to also - simultaneously without fail sever everything else connected to the engine cleanly. This includes the various control and sensor wiring going to the engine, plus things like fuel lines - which need to not just be severed, but sealed. So more pyrotechnic bolts, and guillotine cutters to break anything. If you get this wrong you can make things worse as the engine rips other bits off or something.

I really don't see this happening anytime soon.


I'm sure there have been instances where jettisoning an engine would have been beneficial. This "facility" is automatic, in that it will rip itself off without doing critical damage, in case of severe shock or vibration. Off the top of my head I can think of a 737-200 (Piedmont?), 727 (domestic, USA), 707 (over France?) and a couple of 747s which have landed after an engine departed in flight.

Your first point - absolutely agree. Murphy's law!

Second point - as mentioned, it will detach itself cleanly if the stresses are great enough. Engines are attached by three or four pins, surprisingly small when you first see one, and these are the designed shear locations. It was one of these, pre-weakened, which gave way on the DC-10 at Chicago.

Third point - again, things take care of themselves. Electrical shorts will trip circuit breakers, loss of the generator is no biggie, hydraulic leaks will hopefully be protected by fuses, and fuel/hydraulics/bleed air etc. will be isolated by the crew working through the engine failure checklist. I'm not aware of any engine separation checklists.

It doesn't happen often enough to justify the risks and expense of what would be a complex, maintenance-hungry system.
 
musang
Posts: 816
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:10 am

"One last thing from the video that stood out was it took 30 seconds after the engine exploded on UA1175 for the pilots instruments to show them which engine had actually failed. Even though all the bells, whistles and alerts were going off in the cockpit it took a full 30 seconds before the instruments for the right engine failed and stopped working."

Struggling to get my head around that concept. Are we imagining the engine exploded and the EPR, N1, N2, fuel flow, vibration, oil pressure etc. etc. didn't register any change for 30 seconds?
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:15 am

musang wrote:
"those in the right seat of the pointy end "

Apart from supersonics, name a transport aircraft on which the nose is pointier than the tailcone!





V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: UA328 engine explosion at DEN

Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:22 am

musang wrote:
Second point - as mentioned, it will detach itself cleanly if the stresses are great enough. Engines are attached by three or four pins, surprisingly small when you first see one, and these are the designed shear locations. It was one of these, pre-weakened, which gave way on the DC-10 at Chicago.

AA191? My understanding was that it wasn’t one of the fuse pins where the engine mounts to the pylon that let go; it was the point where the pylon mounted to the wing, which had been weakened by improper engine removals (removing the engine and pylon together from the wing rather than the engine from the pylon)

musang wrote:
It doesn't happen often enough to justify the risks and expense of what would be a complex, maintenance-hungry system.

This is a very true point.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh

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