On the bright side, it shows that these planes can land safely despite a catastrophic engine failure.
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:19 am
by tabascoboy
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit scrap metal recycling"
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:34 pm
by fishfoodie
Biffer wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:17 am
On the bright side, it shows that these planes can land safely despite a catastrophic engine failure.
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
The 26-year-old 777 was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines. Investigators will focus on what caused the accident and will look at whether a fan blade failed.
Biffer wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:17 am
On the bright side, it shows that these planes can land safely despite a catastrophic engine failure.
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
The 26-year-old 777 was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines. Investigators will focus on what caused the accident and will look at whether a fan blade failed.
26 year old plane, parked for a year, maintenance rushed to get it flying again, etc
Biffer wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:17 am
On the bright side, it shows that these planes can land safely despite a catastrophic engine failure.
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
The 26-year-old 777 was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines. Investigators will focus on what caused the accident and will look at whether a fan blade failed.
26 year old plane, parked for a year, maintenance rushed to get it flying again, etc
... and a mechanic who can't find his 3/4" socket .....
A Boeing 747-400BCF freighter registered VQ-BWT (MSN 24975) flying for Bermuda-based Longtail Aviation took off from runway 21 at Maastricht Aachen Airport this Saturday afternoon at 16:11 (UTC+1). The aeroplane operating flight LGT5504 to New York JFK experienced heavy damage on an engine shortly after take-off. Engine parts (turbine blades) fell in the nearby village of Meerssen resulting in 2 people slightly injured and damage to cars.
According to a spokesman for the South Limburg Safety Region, an explosion has probably occurred in engine number one of the aircraft. Metal parts such as turbine blades have come down around the Limburg town of Meerssen.
Debris hit an elderly woman, who was slightly injured as a result. A child also burned his fingers on a piece of metal.
In Meerssen several houses and cars got damaged by falling debris.
The thirty-year-old plane immediately diverted on three engines to Liège airport, where it landed safely after making a number of laps over the Ardennes to burn fuel and lose weight.
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 7:55 pm
by Hal Jordan
Sandstorm wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:24 am
Needs more brown tape.
Biffer wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:17 am
On the bright side, it shows that these planes can land safely despite a catastrophic engine failure.
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
The 26-year-old 777 was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines. Investigators will focus on what caused the accident and will look at whether a fan blade failed.
26 year old plane, parked for a year, maintenance rushed to get it flying again, etc
This is something I'm genuinely concerned about wrt sir travel. Planes are designed to fly constantly, not sit on the ground.
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:53 am
by Torquemada 1420
We really should add this to the 737 thread and rename it Official Boeing F**k Up Thread.
At this rate, it'll be longer than the swarm thread on PR.
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
26 year old plane, parked for a year, maintenance rushed to get it flying again, etc
This is something I'm genuinely concerned about wrt sir travel. Planes are designed to fly constantly, not sit on the ground.
Other than a brief hiatus this one has been flying pretty much every day through the pandemic
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:01 pm
by tc27
Sounds like its more a P&W problem than a Boeing one.
Interestingly today just found out that ETOPs regulations require different technicians to service each engine on twin engine aircraft (for obvious reasons).
But on the downside; in the event of a disc burst; the cowling, HAS TO CONTAIN THE SHRAPNEL !
If it doesn't; there's a good chance the wing, & fuel tanks can be ruptured.
In this case the engine manufacturer, & not Boeing, has some serious questions to answer.
26 year old plane, parked for a year, maintenance rushed to get it flying again, etc
... and a mechanic who can't find his 3/4" socket .....
It’s buried in the bonnet of an F350 pickup truck 57 miles from the airport.
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:52 pm
by Openside
tabascoboy wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:19 am
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit scrap metal recycling"
Re: Plane over Colorado...
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:22 pm
by Torquemada 1420
tc27 wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:01 pm
Sounds like its more a P&W problem than a Boeing one.
Interestingly today just found out that ETOPs regulations require different technicians to service each engine on twin engine aircraft (for obvious reasons).
That's correct. To avoid user error. it's fine in theory but useless mostly in practice because
a) The technicians are likely to have had the same background training and so that lends itself to the same potential deficiencies.
b) Once shortcuts become known in a group (or encouraged/enforced by employers), the best you can expect is for some techies not to compromise their personal standards but
whistle blowing is down towards non existent.
fishfoodie wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:53 pm
Yikes !
a chunk of titanium moving at terminal velocity; I'm surprised it didn't go straight thru the roof
That’ll be a hell of a claim form to fill in.
They're used to odd claims in the Netherlands. A mate managed to accidentally chuck a snowball through a window that was only open about 6 inches straight into the PC monitor of the householder who was working inside.
All while cycling past with a serious hangover.
We often amused ourselves speculating how the insurance claim was worded.
Geez mate I obviously need to empty my toolbox and just have to 2 things in.
