It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

777 engine flaw?

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Singapore Airlines flight SQ368, a 777-300ER from Singapore to Milan returned to Singapore after receiving an oil warning on the right hand GE90-115BL engine. After landing, the engine and wing erupted in flames. There were no injuries to passengers, but the right wing of the aircraft suffered major damage, especially to the aft portion of the wing. There were 222 passengers and crew on board the aircraft, registered as 9V-SWB. The aircraft was delivered in 2006.





www.flightglobal.com...

On May 27th, a Korean Airlines 777-300ER, HL7534 delivered in 1999, was departing Tokyo's Haneda airport as flight KE2708 to Seoul Gimpo when the left hand PW4090 erupted in flames, suffering significant damage to the engine cowling and underwing area. None of the 302 passengers and 18 crew were injured.







www.aviationgazette.com...

The first incident was another GE90, in October of last year when a British Airways flight departing Las Vegas erupted in flames on takeoff. The fire burned into the fuselage, and the wing area. The aircraft was eventually repaired and returned to service this year.





www.seattletimes.com...

With it being both the PW and GE engines, it's not likely that it is a common parts issue, which makes me wonder if it's a common control issue, or something airframe related. Possibly lines rubbing somewhere, and the vibration of the engine rubs them until they crack.




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Seems to me, Zaph,

that you're long overdue

for asking Boeing for some major consultancy fees!

Cheers!



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I imagine the pucker factor was high that day.

Seeing flames shooting out the back of the engine and the wing on fire would leave a brown stain in ones pants.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

That happened less than two hours ago (the Singapore flight). It was posted online about 30 minutes ago.
edit on 6/26/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Or at least a trickle down a lot of legs.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
More images from the incident today. The crew didn't evacuate the passengers right away for some reason.






posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
I imagine the pucker factor was high that day.

Seeing flames shooting out the back of the engine and the wing on fire would leave a brown stain in ones pants.



That's with all 3 happening on the ground. Imagine if you were 30k up and looked out the window at that.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Hmmph, I guess I didn't realize Singapore had a lot of triple 7's. When I used to fly them their fleet was almost all 747-400's. They had some A-300's they would run up into central Asia, but they were pretty much end of life. I'd usually fly MAS up into Malaysia though, or (skeery) Thai up into Thailand (I guess they were better than Silk though).

Now they seem to be an A-380 fleet. I guess the Europe runs make sense for a 777.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Im going to take a stab here Zaph and concur with you that all three incidents have a common cause. My best guess is the its a fuel line, possibly the strut to engine connection or a failure in a fuel to oil heat exchanger. One thing for certain is that the SIA incident aint no oil fire (nor is it Skydrol). All the oil is contained within the engine casing and accessory gearbox. That wont cause flames to erupt along the entire length of the wing, but a fuel line failure with the boost pumps running could as it sprayed out and up with the flames.

One has to question what the hell the cabin crew were doing, were they not looking out at the bright orange glow and PA'ing the flight deck urging an evac via the LHS exits? Then again SIA skippers are frequently under pressure to make schedule so maybe he thought he could just blow it out with a fire bottle or two.


LEE.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

One of the passengers reported a "gasoline smell" as the fire started so it sounds like a fuel line cracked.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Yes, having the plane you're on catch fire is attention getting. Moreso in the air than on the ground.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What might be a reason for a delayed evacuation?

Trying to determine better which direction would be least hazardous?

What?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Zaphod58

What might be a reason for a delayed evacuation?

Trying to determine better which direction would be least hazardous?

What?

I would bet that the flames were whipped under the fuselage and showing up on the other side. They probably were waiting to make sure people did not egress into wind blown fire.

Btw: Nice thread Zaph, brings up a lot of thoughts about a few particular flights....
edit on 27-6-2016 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv
No the latest report in Flight Global specifically states that the prevailing wind was blowing the flames away from the fuse. My bet is that it was a case of the tech crew not possibly realizing the true extent of the fire because from the cockpit you cannot see it, and cabin crew were probably thought to be exaggerating the size of the fire. And that a rapid response from Changi Airport fire services had them believing that it was safer to leave the passengers on board. And there are plenty of examples of this thinking being correct from other incidents in recent years, including notably at Changi itself.

As for the cause I am leaning more to there being a failure in a fuel to oil heat exchanger. This would explain both the loss of oil and the rapid spread of fire over such a large area. Television footage I just watched showed substantial damage to the LE and TE devices with large sheets of charred carbon fibre flapping in the breeze from the lower wing surfaces at least 20ft outboard of the RH engine.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
As for why some planes don't evacuate with fire outside, here's what should be going on in the minds of the crew immediately after the plane stops moving:
The flight attendants should be attempting to maintain order, keeping the passengers seated, and listening for instructions from the Captain.
The First Officer should be assisting the Captain as he (or she (female captains tend to be excellent)) directs.
The Captain should be following a mental checklist such as the following "STOP" checklist:
S - Stop the plane; set the brakes.
T - Talk to the passengers promptly, saying something like, "This is the captain. Remain seated; Remain seated. I'll have more information in a moment. Talk to the Fire Chief. On the radio, right there on tower frequency, will be the head of the firefighters. "Fire chief, this is the captain of the airplane. Tell me what you see."
O - Oversee the situation. Once the captain knows what he faces, he must decide where the passengers are safest. A fire outside that will soon be extinguished may not be a threat to your passengers safely shrouded inside the fuselage, assuming there is no smoke or fumes. They should sit tight, and a smart captain should now explain this fact to them. (Evacuations down the slides almost always results in a few minor injuries here and there, so they should not be executed lightly.)
P - Proceed. Should there be no fire, nor smoke, nor fumes, the captain should consider Proceeding to the "hot brake area." The hot brake area is a place away from persons or equipment where the brakes can cool. Aborted takeoffs and emergency landings sometimes heat the brakes to the point at which their extreme heat migrates to adjacent wheel and tire components, resulting, during the ensuing hour, in occasional explosive shattering, with chunks shooting about. So he doesn't want to take his plane to the regular ramp. If, however, normal braking was used, the flight should Proceed to the jetway, then the crew can Proceed to the hotel and have a beer.

EVACUATION: Should the captain decide to evacuate, he will speak on the PA, conditions permitting. Before he uses the "E" word, he will cite the exits to be used. "Flight attendants, left side only; left side only: Evacuate! Evacuate!" Now the captain is pretty much a bystander, and assists the flight attendants as they may direct. Evacuating passengers quickly is their specialty. It is what they are trained for, over and over. No longer serving drinks and cushions, they have become screaming, commanding, whirling dervishes, ordering everybody about, working as a team, knowing just what to do to get the people out of the plane as quickly and safely as possible. The best thing passengers can do is follow their instructions exactly.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The PW engine had a failure related to the engine, not the airframe. I don't know what the causes of the GE90s failures are, but the other one is not related to Boeing.

They should have had those people out much earlier. If I had seen those flames engulfing that wing, I would have opened the left side door and activated that slide really, really fast. Insanity.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Unburnt fuel equals fumes.Fumes plus fire baaaaaaaadddd.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: charlyv
No the latest report in Flight Global specifically states that the prevailing wind was blowing the flames away from the fuse. My bet is that it was a case of the tech crew not possibly realizing the true extent of the fire because from the cockpit you cannot see it, and cabin crew were probably thought to be exaggerating the size of the fire. And that a rapid response from Changi Airport fire services had them believing that it was safer to leave the passengers on board. And there are plenty of examples of this thinking being correct from other incidents in recent years, including notably at Changi itself.

As for the cause I am leaning more to there being a failure in a fuel to oil heat exchanger. This would explain both the loss of oil and the rapid spread of fire over such a large area. Television footage I just watched showed substantial damage to the LE and TE devices with large sheets of charred carbon fibre flapping in the breeze from the lower wing surfaces at least 20ft outboard of the RH engine.

LEE.


Thanks, that is good and documented info. Way back when, I was in a C118 with 30 others that had an engine fire soon after rotation , which was scary, but the pilot called an immediate emergency, turned the bird around and the fire trucks had already put down foam on the same runway we took off from. He landed it in the foam at around 150mhp, which screwed up the landing gear bad, but the plane stopped. By this time the entire wing was on fire, and it was being put out by the foam trucks. Someone opened up an emergency hatch on the fire side of the fuselage and the foam covered everyone in the front part of the plane. What stinky stuff that was...but we all lived to tell about it. It all happened so quick.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The AAIB preliminary report on SQ368 shows fuel in the oil system of the right engine. This points to a crack in the main fuel oil heat exchanger. The last visit to an engine shop was March 2014. In December 2014 GE sent out a Service Bulletin to identify and remove certain MFOHEs to inspect for cracks in the fuel lines.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
dangitt, so the smell of kerosene in the cabin supply somehow...




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join