All souls safely landed.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1363248854347501570

pics of debris: 

https://twitter.com/BroomfieldPD?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1363234160081465348|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsimpleflying.com%2Funited-boeing-777-loses-engine-parts%2F

 

 

Edited February 20, 20215 yr by CYXR

Thanks for posting the videos, and story.

Edited February 20, 20215 yr by Paul Deluca

 

 

Edited February 20, 20215 yr by CYXR

More pictures and video here:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39361/listen-to-the-mayday-call-of-the-united-777-that-had-a-catastrophic-engine-failure-over-colorado

Good to know they got down okay. Seems like it's one of those days what with that 747 also losing engine parts.

Boeing living up to its acronym (Bits Of Engine In Neighbour's Garden) in Colorado and The Netherlands

 

Great to hear that both planes made it back safely.

 

Mallard

I guess blaming Boeing is the popular thing to do, but Boeing does not make the engines.  Glad that all survived and there were no injuries.

The upside is the B777 can work with just one engine. The downside is the house that received the engine front piece (how's its name?) just in front of its door. It seems the house damage is minor, fortunately.

Cheers, Ed

47 minutes ago, stans said:

I guess blaming Boeing is the popular thing to do, but Boeing does not make the engines.  Glad that all survived and there were no injuries.

True. In both cases yesterday the engines were Pratt & Whitney 4000s. Fortunately there were no damages to the wings and the control surfaces. There were 2 who sustained minor injuries on the ground in Maastricht.

Edited February 21, 20215 yr by CYXR

14 minutes ago, edpatino said:

The upside is the B777 can work with just one engine.

Having recently transitioned from the 747 to the 777, (well the 787 actually but my licence says I can also fly a 777 ,which is slightly alarming to me at least) I can tell you there’ll have been  a massive difference in the mindsets between the 747 and 777 crews involved in yesterday’s incidents.

The 74 crew contain the problem then loiter and plan while they dump fuel, the 777 incident would I suspect be a lot more intense.

As they say, why do people still fly 4 engine jets in these times of high fuel prices and environmental concerns ?...because there aren’t any 5 engined jets !

More problems for Boeing.

Boeing 777s grounded after Denver engine failure - BBC News

On 2/22/2021 at 4:00 AM, G-RFRY said:

More problems for Boeing.

Boeing 777s grounded after Denver engine failure - BBC News

It should read Pratt and Whitney Powered planes grounded...   We are talking 70 in service places, 60 are already parked, so that's 70 planes, I believe all United out of almost 1,700 777's delivered?  Like others have said, blaming Boeing grabs headlines, especially when they can "somehow" link it to the Max issues but this is clearly an engine manufacturer issue.  

Glad GE is my customer 🤣

 

 

On 2/21/2021 at 9:30 AM, jon b said:

Having recently transitioned from the 747 to the 777, (well the 787 actually but my licence says I can also fly a 777 ,which is slightly alarming to me at least) I can tell you there’ll have been  a massive difference in the mindsets between the 747 and 777 crews involved in yesterday’s incidents.

The 74 crew contain the problem then loiter and plan while they dump fuel, the 777 incident would I suspect be a lot more intense.

As they say, why do people still fly 4 engine jets in these times of high fuel prices and environmental concerns ?...because there aren’t any 5 engined jets !

This is very relevant...  The 747 crew I believe stayed airborne for an hour calmly handling the situation.  The 777 crew "seemed" to be in a far more dire situation but the biggest concern for me is why the extinguisher system did not "extinguish" the fire.  Had they been somewhere they could not have returned immediately and that fire continues to burn uncontrollably we most likely have a total loss.  Either that or we see some WWII bomber type extinguishing going on!!  

 

Both crews did a great job that’s for sure, it’s just a failure in a 2 engine jet is a completely different ball game to a 4 engine jet.

Having said that an engine out with severe damage and uncontrolled  fire Even if you have 4 engines would certainly level the playing field !

 I’m not sure what happened on the 777 engine but it may be that with the casing blown off the majority of the fire suppressant just vented straight to the atmosphere rather than being contained and snuffing out the flames outside of the engine hot section.

With emergency management the first thing we analyse once we reach the planning stage is time. 
Incidentally planning  is the 3rd stage , the first 2 are 1) fly the thing 2) correctly identify the issue.

Regrettably in some of the incidents recently discussed on these forums  it would appear the crews may have neglected focus on and complete stage 1 which led to tragic outcomes.

Now, how much time would the 747 crew have  to handle their emergency and get back safely on the ground ? Well , actually ,and it may surprise some people....  about 8 hours. This is known as having a big “T” (Time)

They had secured the engine, no fire , and they were on the way to JFK so would have had over 8 hours of fuel onboard. The 747 will handle nicely on 3 engines and can stay up there all day while plans are made.

I remember having a bird strike in number 1 engine on rotation in the 747 years ago on the way to San Francisco from London. We had to shut the engine down as it suffered major damage to the fan and was vibrating and buzzing like a chain saw. We then spent an hour or so flying up and down the south coast while we dumped 65 tonnes of fuel to return to Heathrow.

I went back to use the washroom and the passengers were just relaxed reading newspapers, it wasn’t a massive issue, relatively speaking.

Compare to the 777 incident where they have one of only two engines out with severe damage and an un contained fire and presumably with both fire ex bottles fired. They would, I suggest have a very small “T” They need to be on the ground ASAP and with a bad fire that won’t go out they might have to even consider an “ off airport landing”

Although in this instance I suspect the fire in the engine seen on the video may have looked much worse than it actually was in the scheme of things in regards to the damage it was doing and it’s potential to escalate.

The other thing to consider when comparing 2 and 4 engine aircraft is the high level failure scenario.

If you have a simple engine failure while sat cruising at around optimum height in your 747 at say FL 380 you’ll probably have to drift down to FL350 (Top tip-engine out  max alt is normally around 1500-2000ft below optimum for those who fly the PMDG 747) Depending on circumstances you’ll probably be able to carry on to your destination and arrive only 5 minutes late and down around 10% on fuel. Incredible.

Compare that to a 787/777 at FL 380, you’re probably going to drift down to around 23-25,000ft, and this can be a major issue if you happen to be over an area of  high terrain where your sector safe may be higher than your stabilising altitude.

Whatever happens you’re going to have to plan to land your twin jet at the nearest suitable airport, and with ETOPS 180 you could be limping your way there for 3 hours on 1 engine.
 

Twin jets are the darlings of Airline accountants and environmentalists due to their cheaper operating costs and lower fuel burn and thus carbon output. However they are not without their compromises, which when things go wrong can be quite large compromises.

Society and the travelling public need to consider the question do they want to fly as cheaply and cleanly as possible or as safely as possible ?

It’s a rather mute question now though as the age of the 4 engine passenger jet has now, sadly, and very recently passed , you’ll be lucky if you ever fly on one again.

Yup, that's the real problem with twins versus quads in terms of operational difficulties; if an engine goes, you lose half your power versus losing a quarter of it, and all your thrust is on one side. Although there is of course the slight possibility that when one engine on a quad lets go, it could potentially damage the adjacent engine if some shrapnel hits that one too, but generally speaking, more redundancy is going to make for a bigger safety margin. However...

Having said that, we do have to bear in mind that part of the reason why four engines were put on aeroplanes in the first place, was because they were less reliable than they are these days, owing to the engineering tolerances possible before computer-controlled manufacturing was part of the deal, as well as the lack of more advanced materials at the time which also contributed to that lower reliability. Which is why as these things improved, we saw that drop to three engines in the late Sixties and Seventies and then drop again to the now commonplace twin arrangement; we can see the logic of that decision based on the fact that we didn't really see an increase in accidents correlating with a decrease in the number of rubber bands the things have.

Having system redundancy is of course good, but having improved reliability which negates the need for that redundancy, is better. Oddly enough however, with the push toward electric power, we might at some point see multiples of engines being a thing again for reasons of potential power output, so I wouldn't complete bet against the idea that we'll never see anything bigger than a twin-engined airliner ever again.

Edited February 23, 20215 yr by Chock