NEWS: Where Did The Engine Go? A 747 cargo plane loses engine in flight

reply to post by FredT


anything you can dream of is possible--i have one of those scanner radios that picks up aircraft comms amongst other things--pilots have "private" conversations between each other on 123.450 mghz and on 130.300 mghz quite often as they fly over north east usa.one day 2 pilots were talking 1 says this plane--a jumbo jet just came back from an overhaul--he says i've got all kinds of strange vibrations cant get rid of and a few other problems cant tell you about over the air--no doubt all the "dumb sheep"like i would be in back dont have a clue as they stuff their faces enjoying the flight.one flight i was on to kentucy the md88 blew a tire on landing--i was sitting over the wing in back close to the wheels on the right side where she blew--the vibrations were so bad i had to hold onto my glasses.so when we disembarked i complimented the pilots on keeping cool--1 says to me oh--did you feel that?--like no big deal--just a mosquito bite--i wonder what some think is an emergency?like these guys probably wouldn't have thought an engine dropping off a big deal !

reply to post by forestlady

talk about well earned justice--engine falls from plane onto factory that built it with defects.
you know--i bought a new car once that turned out to be a lemon and couldnt get the service from the dealer that was supposed to honour the 5 year warranty --it gets ridiculous when the dealer has your car for what seemed like 1/2 the time you own it--i just had an almost irresistible urge to see that car delivered back to where it came from--by air--but instead i gave it away to a young fellow that understood the problems i had with it but didnt care since it was free

There are a number of defects that are impossible to see or detect until it's too late. They will appear to be fine, and just as strong as a "normal" part, but will fail much earlier than they should. There is nothing that can be done except to tighten quality control at wherever they are building the parts. You also have to remember that just because Boeing builds a plane, doesn't mean that Boeing is building ALL the parts for said plane. There are any number of international companies involved in building the parts for that plane. It's just that Boeing is responsible for putting them all together into the working plane, and they did the design for it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


no doubt some of the engine parts are now being contracted to chinese factories that make our toys 1/2 the time ---imagine if the same quality controls are being applied ? ----i definitly wouldnt knowingly buy food grown in china after reading about pets being poisoned or about fish farms being located at the mouths of sewers--or radial tires that shread unexpectedly because the factory manager decided to save money by not inserting the rubber sheet in between the 2 plies as the specs called for.well hopefully their teething problems are over so we dont have to worry anymore ?

China has built parts for aircraft for years. They HAVE to put a tight standard in place, or no one will allow them to license build their planes, or allow them to build parts for aircraft to ship to them. Boeing alone has 4500 aircraft flying that have parts from China on them, and they are flying for the most part without any major problems.

This website shows just how important China is in building aircraft for Boeing. They have supplied MANY parts for many of the aircraft you have flown on in recent years, and those aircraft are still flying.

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

Originally posted by Now_ThenI can remember an episode of seconds from disaster ............ think it hit a block of flats in Amsterdam but don't quote me.

That was a EL AL B747-200 in 1992.

More details here:

www.corrosion-doctors.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Thanks, that is the one, good memory

That was a nasty accident - could of been even worse had that 747 been carrying passengers.

reply to post by Zaphod58


thanks for the good news about how safe our planes are regardless----now i've been warned--i have to kiss the ground before getting on the plane and then kiss the ground when i arrive safely ? seriously i really had no idea ---china apparently owns us ?

Parts built in China DO NOT equal unsafe planes. This is the first year in the last nine that the hull loss rate has increased, and the increase is tiny. In 1998 the hull loss rate was at 1.34 per million departures, it bottomed out in 2006 at 0.65 per million. If we have no more losses before December 31st we will fall below 0.83 per million for the year. At the end of the third quarter we were right at 0.83. We won't be able to match the 2006 loss rate, but we can fall below the 0.83 per million.

Just an FYI you guys realize that this is a 3 year old thread right?

Just thought I would mention that.


Back on topic:

As Zaphod points out MRO function in China correspond to the same standards etc as anywhere else in the world.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Almost all of the recent ones were OLD aircraft that were probably flying past their retirement dates. When you fly do research into the airlines you're flying on. If you're flying short distances, you want to look for 737-600s or later. If you're going longer distances, you want either 747-400s, or 777s. For the 767s, you want -300s or -400s. These are just the Boeing planes, but if you want more information on what to look for, U2U me an email address, and I'll pass on the latest planes flying, that have good safety records. I'm not going to be around ATS much anymore, so I might not get a U2U for awhile, but if you pass on your request I'll do my best to help out through email.

Well, i'm currently flying B737 classic, NG and Triple seven 300-ER.
My airline has lots of B737-classic's with low-cycles, or i might say low hours on frame.
On the other hand we have some NG's on high density routs that has 3 times the cycles of the classics.
While the NG is a much nicer aircraft to fly with alot less workload due to it's glass cockpit and high degree of automation, there's no way to say that the classics are less safe operated with properly trained crew and
the same maintenance as the NG's.

As for the triple seven it's a FBW-aircraft designed with Boeing philosophy and the requirement of similarity with other Boeing flightdecks.
There's not much difference between a 777-200 and a 777-300 ER apart from the numbers of takeoff weight and performance.

Airline safety has more to do with culture, maintenance and management than the age of the aircraft.

And I'm not saying that older aircraft are unsafe. However, if you look at the majority of the incidents like this one, they are older airframes. The 747s that were cited were -200s, the 737 that recently lost an engine was a -200. The fact of the matter is that older aircraft have more corrosion, and are harder to maintain than the newer aircraft. The USAF is flying planes that are 30 and 40 years old, but they're paying through the nose to keep them in the air, and have a lot of corrosion problems.

One of the worst accidents to happen in Hawaii when I live there was Aloha 243. The plane had thousands of cycles on it, but few hours as the longest flight in Hawaii was 45 minutes. They had corrosion and metal fatigue that no one had found, and it ripped the top right off the plane.

You are MORE likely to have an accident in an older plane than a newer one. It's not that they're unsafe, just that they're harder to maintain, and can have things happen between inspections easier than newer planes.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the worst accidents to happen in Hawaii when I live there was Aloha 243. The plane had thousands of cycles on it, but few hours as the longest flight in Hawaii was 45 minutes. They had corrosion and metal fatigue that no one had found, and it ripped the top right off the plane.

A boarding passanger spotted a crack in the fueselage and did not say anything about it. Could have prevented the aircraft from taking off if she had.

Im am very qurious about how an airframe failure on an all composite a/c like the 787 would go? Id put my money at the failure occuring where the barrel sections are joined, but anybody know?

It most likely happened during earlier flights. The captain had done a visual inspection of the aircraft before the first flight that morning, but neither the FAA or the airline required any sort of inspection after that one until the following morning. They were on something like their sixth flight of the day when the accident happened.

As for the 787 I'm curious too. I'd be willing to bet you're right, but it'll be interesting to see how it happens during their ground testing.

reply to post by Zaphod58


AWST had a picture last week of the 787 line. there were 3 a/c in various degrees of assembly and the article indicated that one was the static test aircraft.

What I want to see is the wing deflection test Ill bet thats going to be impressive to say the least when that baby goes

One of the reasons the seat cost mile in the 787 is so low is that the corrosion issues are alot less with its composite structure.

[edit on 12/22/07 by FredT]

What's interesting is that the LCF is making empty flights from Charleston to Everett.

Dreamliner 1 is having blankets and insulation installed. #2 and #3 are the fatigue and static test aircraft, and they're coming together faster than #1. The fastener problem has been fixed, and everything is coming together pretty quickly now. They have pilots in sims testing out the new flight control software as well. First flight for Dreamliner 1 is scheduled for March 31st.

reply to post by Zaphod58



Re; LCF

I think they are ironing out loading and flight procedures, because once production ramps up those a/c are going to be reall really busy and lets face it the line is going to depend on them as well.

I just wanted to point out again that this event happened 3 years ago and this thread is that old...

just an FYI

reply to post by FredT


That would make sense. The production numbers that they're talking about would need to have all aspects running smoothly, with no mistakes. So it would make a lot of sense that they'd want to fly it back and forth for training. Maybe they're just flying odd sized cargo in it to practice loading and unloading.

Originally posted by titian
Both planes? Where'd the other plane come from -- I only saw one mentioned.

In any event that plane is lucky. Others who have had engines falling off have not been so lucky:

news.bbc.co.uk...

August 24 2001 Air Transat FLight 236...both engines dead over the Atlantic..I'm still here...But that's thanks to the pilots.

Edit; Oh you mean engines falling right off...well that's just as frightening.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

The engine that came off of the Kalitta Boeing 747 went into Lake Michigan. I used to fly for Connie and I talked to one of their flight engineers right after it happened. He said the engine had just come out of overhaul.

I'll make a few calls and see if they ever tried to recover it.