The Resurrection of (10/1998 to 01/2021, 11/21- 11/25) Elizabeth 1999 V70T5M56 Cylinder Head Job Topic is solved

[BlackBart]

I was impressed. And they never dumped the fuel, which is interesting. Over a city, not high enough, no time? Or no need, as it was flying just fine on one engine as designed? But heavy, right, with a non-stop to Hawaii?

Speaking as a layman here - The way that engine was shaking in the mounts, maybe lucky it didn't shear off and go through someone's house. Lucky that the chunk that went through the wing fairing didn't go into the fuselage instead. Lucky the blades didn't take out hydraulic lines somewhere.

Was that oil burning, or fuel leaking somewhere into the engine, do you think?

[bmdubya1198]

I’m not too familiar with aircraft engines, but aren’t the flames inside normal operation for a jet engine? Obviously the thing had fallen apart quite a bit, it was moving all around in the mounts, but I always thought that was the normal combustion for one of those.

[matthew1]

I thought it was interesting the pilot turned left to get back to DIA. That means the good engine was on the inside of the turn. I learned Best Practices on two-engine planes was to turn with the good engine on the outside of the turn to avoid stalling.

Maybe that just applies to prop planes?

[FlyingVolvo]

I was impressed. And they never dumped the fuel, which is interesting. Over a city, not high enough, no time? Or no need, as it was flying just fine on one engine as designed? But heavy, right, with a non-stop to Hawaii?

Speaking as a layman here - The way that engine was shaking in the mounts, maybe lucky it didn't shear off and go through someone's house. Lucky that the chunk that went through the wing fairing didn't go into the fuselage instead. Lucky the blades didn't take out hydraulic lines somewhere.

Was that oil burning, or fuel leaking somewhere into the engine, do you think?

It's a little unusual for a heavyweight large passenger plane to not dump fuel if time/conditions permit. There are designated dump areas that ATC can vector you for, though a pilot can dump fuel anywhere, including over a city, if absolutely required to save the airframe. This is pure conjecture on my part, but it's possible that with the engine failure, they may have also had a fire indication that didn't go out after the emergency shutdown procedure. If that's the case, generally the priority is to get on the ground as soon as possible, even if it means getting hot brakes. As long as the landing data supports the runway you're aiming for, you may not need to adjust gross weight significantly. That being said, less fuel on landing is always good in most emergency situations, particularly with passengers onboard.

The engines are designed to take a lot of abuse and shaking, so it's unlikely the pod would fall off completely. They are are designed in a way that generally (but not always!) prevents fan blades from blasting out and doing damage to the airframe. That plane likely has two independant hydraulic systems, so loss of one would still allow for normal operation of the control surfaces and flaps/gear.

The fire seen was probably residual fuel and maybe oil. When they pull the emergency shutoff valve, it will cut off fuel/oil/hydraulics/electrics from that engine at the pod attachment on the wing. Even after doing so, there can be enough fuel in the lines to run the engine for a couple minutes.

I’m not too familiar with aircraft engines, but aren’t the flames inside normal operation for a jet engine? Obviously the thing had fallen apart quite a bit, it was moving all around in the mounts, but I always thought that was the normal combustion for one of those.

Yes, but if you see if from the outside, something ain't right! The fire indeed should be contained to the core/combustion chamber, but not in or around the engine nacelle. Looking at diagrams of the PW4000 engines on the 777, to me it looks like the fire is uncontained in the core. The investigation will get to the root of it though. FAA/NTSB investigations tend to be pretty meticulous and good at finding things out. I may have some credentials, but even most pilots are just armchair observers right now.

I thought it was interesting the pilot turned left to get back to DIA. That means the good engine was on the inside of the turn. I learned Best Practices on two-engine planes was to turn with the good engine on the outside of the turn to avoid stalling.

Maybe that just applies to prop planes?

Generally, you don't want to do any major turning in the direction of the bad engine. The plane will tend to yaw in the direction of the dead engine, so if you are turning into it, and have higher thrust setting on the good engine, you can get to a situation where it's tougher to roll out of the turn. Worst case scenario, it gets away from you with too much power and you could yaw/roll too far and enter a stall or spin.

[BlackBart]

That's very interesting. I only know a bit from reading investigations of big jet crashes that the sudden surge from the good engine gives that wing more lift, while the opposite drops back and loses lift, which caused them to roll and dive out of control.

The tower asked the pilot which way he wanted to turn, and he said left.

[abscate]

Amazing amount of engineering here. When American 191 went in at ORD, an engine pylon had failed during takeoff, gone up and over the wing as designed. They were able to climb out on one engine, but the damage rolled out slats on one wing , and the resulting aymmetry was too much for,the pilots to handle. They also didn’t get slat indication so they were short of information , too.

[bmdubya1198]

Aviation is fascinating. So much has to go into fail safe precautions for aircraft. It's incredible to me that these planes can just keep on going (obviously not too safely, but they keep moving well enough!) after an engine failure like that. It's always left me unsettled about flying, but clearly it's much safer than you would think. My thinking was always that if I blow up an engine, I can pull over to the shoulder of the highway. They don't have a shoulder in the sky!

[abscate]

I grew up in an aviation Engineering house , and Dad was in Bomber Command in WWII.

The flying public has no clue as to the level of engineering amd safety built into the industry. The 6 mile trip home by Volvo is statistically 10,000x more dangerous than the LAX EwR leg you just flew, but I don’t “ feel” that way.

On an unrelated note

0700 and already 35F, positively tropical

[RickHaleParker]

I grew up in an aviation Engineering house , and Dad was in Bomber Command in WWII.

I did Avionics manufacturing for 20 years. Dad was a Norden bombsight mechanic in WWII.

[bmdubya1198]

0700 and already 35F, positively tropical

I guess out of respect I won't mention that currently at 11:32 it's 65F... with a high of 71 today.

Ooops... I guess I let that slip