Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

After a Boeing 777 Rained Failed-Engine Debris on Neighborhood Below, More Planes Grounded (msn.com) 118

Posted by EditorDavid from the engine-failure dept.
After a twin-engine, wide-bodied Boeing 777 took off from a Denver airport — carrying 231 passengers and 10 crew members — its right engine failed. It began dropping debris on several neighborhoods below, CNBC reports.

America's Federal Aviation Administration issued a statement saying it was "aware of reports of debris in the vicinity of the airplane's flight path," CNBC adds, noting that less than 30 minutes later the plane had returned to the airport. No passengers were injured.

Today the FAA is issuing an emergency airworthiness directive, "requiring immediate or stepped-up inspections" of similar planes. In a statement FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said the move "will likely mean that some airplanes will be removed from service." Dickson's statement suggests the inspections will be directed at hollow fan blades that "are unique to this model of engine, used solely on Boeing 777 airplanes."

And more steps are being taken in Japan, reports Bloomberg: Meanwhile, Japan's transport ministry on Sunday ordered ANA Holdings and Japan Airlines to ground Boeing 777 planes they operate following the Denver engine failure. ANA operates 19 planes and JAL 13 with Pratt & Whitney's PW4000 engine that saw a failure with United Airlines plane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After a Boeing 777 Rained Failed-Engine Debris on Neighborhood Below, More Planes Grounded More

After a Boeing 777 Rained Failed-Engine Debris on Neighborhood Below, More Planes Grounded

Comments Filter:

  • Time to shout the stock! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Time to shout the stock!

    • BOEING STOCK!

      Huh, didn't do anything. Maybe I should have shouted it yesterday.

      • Re: Time to shout the stock! (Score:5, Funny)

        by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @09:24PM (#61088238)
        In Australia, "to shout" means to buy a round of drinks (hey, don't ask me, they wear corks on their hats and look funny at sheep too). So I think the OP was suggesting buying Boeing stock a round of drinks. That interpretation makes much more sense.
        • Damn autocorrect. BTW, it's your shout.

        • In Australia, "to shout" means to buy a round of drinks (hey, don't ask me, they wear corks on their hats and look funny at sheep too). So I think the OP was suggesting buying Boeing stock a round of drinks. That interpretation makes much more sense.

          If I was Boeing stock, I'd be more thinking like a whole bottle just to myself. Maybe three. I mean, I'm not sure why the engine failure should be Boeing's fault (lack of air flow????) but the general level of "bad luck" they have that turns out to be failure of engineering is shocking. Especially for a company that from the 1940s through to (say) the 1990s was one of the top engineering companies in the world. It's almost criminal. They should be broken up and what engineering they have sold to a compa

          • Life at Boeing (Score:5, Informative)

            by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <salgak AT speakeasy DOT net> on Monday February 22, 2021 @06:58AM (#61089428) Homepage

            I worked at Boeing from 2007 to 2009, albeit not in the Commercial Aircraft unit.

            Some observations:

            1. Weird management system. I had three separate lines of management. One on my program, people I worked with and saw every day. A "HR Management" chain, running out of the West Coast (I was in Virginia), who I would occasionally hear from via email. And a "Career Field" chain, for Systems Engineering, based in Philadelphia, that I never heard from personally, but got occasional email blasts from, every year or two.

            2. Disappearing benefits. When I joined Boeing, health insurance was free for me and my family, not even any co-pays. Education was encouraged, with 100% coverage of tuition, fees, and books for anything other than Law School.

            Over the next two years, health insurance shrank: first, co-pays, and then charging for family coverage, and by the time I left, everyone paid for their coverage,

            Education suddenly switched to "all programs must be approved in advance by all three management chains, must be an approved area for your job category, and reimbursement after submission of a 'B' or higher grade", and several months later, it switched again to requiring approval in advance for each individual course.

            I left Boeing several months after that: luckily, I had completed my Master's 3 months before the new Education policy hit. . .

            • Re:Life at Boeing (Score:4, Interesting)

              by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday February 22, 2021 @10:28AM (#61089998) Homepage

              Everything you describe is pretty normal.

              While I've never seen HR as part of the management chain per-se, the management system you describe is incredibly common. There's management of a project "These people are working on building a jet-powered smoothie machine" then there's management of a discipline "These people are systems engineers.

              I have not known of a company offering totally free health insurance in 20 years. In my experience shrinking of benefits happens slowly and subtly. A switch from PPOs to HMOs to HSAs. The new offering is cheaper and has some perk like the company kicking-in money, so everyone goes to that. Then they raise the price to the original price over a few years, then they remove the incentives, then they retire the old plan.

              Tuition reimbursement is expensive and every company I've worked for required everything you have listed, and the reimbursement was based on continued employment at some minimum performance standards for a few years. They don't like people taking tuition money then leaving. Funny story on that: I worked for a company that offered tuition reimbursement, but the reimbursement vested, so they employee was required to partially repay the tuition if they left within like 2 years or something. An employee went through school for comp sci then got laid-off a few months later. So the company had to pay the entire amount and release the "golden handcuffs." A few months later that person got re-hired for a new project, at a new position, with higher pay since they now had the degree. Great deal for the employee! And they did stick around!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The corks are there to ward off insects.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you're gonna short stock, make it Pratt & Whitney, not Boeing.. It was the ENGINE that failed, not the airplane...

      • Re:Time to shout the stock! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Monday February 22, 2021 @03:09AM (#61088946)

        It is a special order engine used on no other plane, though.

        And Pratt & Whitney is a Raytheon subsidiary. Raytheon mostly builds missiles. They build most of the missiles. This won't move their stock.

        Boeing will take the pain on this. It is their planes grounded; no jet engine factories were closed. It is Boeing recommending changes to the maintenance schedule on their planes; not Raytheon.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @07:51PM (#61087990)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      footage taken by a passenger

      If I looked out the window and saw that I think I'd shit my pants and complete my baldness in one step.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • I'm the kind of person who keeps calm during the event, my fascination kicks in and I turn into a very interested spectator, or help out io needed (such as in case of car accidents). However, after the event, adrenaline starts flowing and my feet turn into jello, my whole body starts shivering, and I am good at nothing for over half an hour, maybe more. That happened to me during several fairly large earthquakes, first one when I was 10, also car crashes I've either been a part of or witnessed.

        • I'd raise an -EIEIO error or an HCF.

        • I'd momentarily wonder if I'm experiencing a once-in-a-lifetime event.
      • Is there footage of the passengers leaving the plane? Were any of them walking funny?

      • footage taken by a passenger

        If I looked out the window and saw that I think I'd shit my pants and complete my baldness in one step.

        If you look out the window and see that, you should realize you're still alive and looking out the window. If the shrapnel hadn't gone through said window into your head or ripped the wing off then there's a really good chance the pilots can bring the plane back to the ground without killing anyone.

        If you had seen that out the window of a deHaviland Comet or even a Boeing 707 then say goodbye. But a 777? Modern aviation is just incredibly safe even when the rare mechanical failure happens.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by SumDog ( 466607 )

      I reposted a version with audio earlier (you can't really hear anything; not all that different):

      https://djsumdog.com/notice/A4... [djsumdog.com]

      Looks absolutely terrifying. You know several people are looking out those windows wonder if they're going to survive this.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • I might well keep my cool, but I'd be smashing those alcoholic inflight drinks HARD to try and keep my calm.

        • I like to think the rational part of my brain would win and I'd keep my cool and confident attitude, but, who knows.

          I think it works the other way round. Rather than the conscious mind being the boss, and the unconscious a bunch of servants working below stairs, the conscious mind is in a way the servant - or perhaps a specialized organ - of the far greater unconscious.

          Thus, in an emergency, the unconscious mind tightens the control parameters of consciousness. That's why we experience such clarity of thought and absence of emotions such as fear.

          • Tend to agree although in the instance of a plane with an engine blowing up, not sure fight or flight is going to be of much use. Really, you become a caged animal with a existential threat posed. Not a happy time. I see it with this rather large hound dog I have. There are coyotes in the area, and his fight instinct kicks in hard when he notices one. To the point I often grab a tree to help brace myself. He is 95lbs. But after about a minute of not letting him pursue, he switches to flight mode, changes pu

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Entrope ( 68843 )

        On the one hand, aircraft designers ensure that, on a two-engine plane, one engine can fail at any time and the passengers should still be safe.

        On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry that the other engine will fail, especially for the same -- obviously unexpected -- cause. If one engine fails so spectacularly, it might lead to a common cause failure for the other engine as well.

        • Re:Passenger footage from the incident. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @09:29PM (#61088246)

          Engines that fail spectacularly typically have something wrong with them thats unique to that engine.

          Its the engines which fail non-spectacularly which you have to worry about with regard to the other engine - for example, Air Transat flight 236, where a burst fuel line led to the pilots unknowingly dumping all their fuel overboard, 200 miles out over the Atlantic ocean. Or British Airways flight 38, where both engines failed within moments of each other after being run back up on final approach to London Heathrow - in that case, a design fault in the fuel heater caused the fuel lines to ice up, starving the engines.

          All aircraft have been, since the 1980s, designed around the concept of "ETOPS" standards, which dictate how long an aircraft must be able to fly when suffering an engine out - originally just for twin engine aircraft that want to fly long distances, its since been extended to 4 engine aircraft as well. These days, ETOPS is up to 370 minutes (for the A350XWB), meaning it can fly for more than 6 hours before having to land after an engine out scenario.

        • Re:Passenger footage from the incident. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @09:31PM (#61088256)
          Failure of both engines is unlikely, but debris from the failed engine striking the wing or similar is a lot less unlikely. Not only can it cause severe structural damage but since they have a wet wing there's also a chance of fire.

          • I would have thought gravity and wind would take care of this (since on commercial jets the engines are usually mounted under the wings), but maybe I would have thought wrong. I guess engine debris could strike the wing if there were a catastrophic turbine failure (sort of like the failure that cut the hydraulic lines on that DC10 flight UAL 232 so many years ago). Are there other circumstances under which engine debris could strike a wing?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sjames ( 1099 )

              There's effectively a several hundred mile wind and somewhat flat parts. Pieces can spread out in a cone behind the engine.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Cederic ( 9623 )

                It's not the wind effect, it's that if a piece of the engine falls off, gravity doesn't have time to move it out of the way before the wing moves into that space.

            • Are there other circumstances under which engine debris could strike a wing?
              If the fans of the turbine are breaking apart.

          • but debris from the failed engine striking the wing or similar is a lot less unlikely.

            I can't find them now, but there are some photos of the plane on the ground. Something struck the fuselage and there is a pool of liquid under the plane.

        • I think I would be more worried that the engine disassembling itself would take the wing off.

    • That its terrifying footage. Though its a credit to at least the structural design of the plane that the damn thing was able to continue flying and actually land with its engine in THAT bad of a shape.

  • Donny Darko (Score:3)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:00PM (#61088010) Journal

    So, Donny Darko [imdb.com] was a documentary?

    • I was coming here to say something about the rumour I heard of a reboot or sequel to Donnie Darko and this as a tie-in..
  • How much longer can Boeing survive with their continuing failures eroding their credibility?

    • Re:Too big to fail? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mistergrumpy ( 7379416 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:12PM (#61088048)
      While this may hurt Boeing, they aren't responsible for the engines. The 777 can be equipped with engines from GE, Rolls Royce or Pratt and Whitney. This appears to be Pratt and Whitney specific.

      • The 777 has been GE only for a decade or so.

      • This was mentioned in Airframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • And it's probably not even Boeing or the engine manufacturer this time. Likely falls on United or whomever they subcontract their maint out to for poorly done maint.

      • Re:Too big to fail? (Score:5, Informative)

        by colfer ( 619105 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:55PM (#61088154)

        Yes, and in addition to the Feb. 13, 2018, SFO to Hawaii, incident with this 777-200 engine model mentioned in msn.com article, there was an incident "JAL 777 flying to Haneda from Naha on Dec. 4," 2020, reported by the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

        I suppose that rules out the cowling failing first, or a bird strike, as a cause. FAA quoted in the WP: "the inspection interval should be stepped up for the hollow fan blades that are unique to this model of engine, used solely on Boeing 777 airplanes."

        From msn.com: "The fan blades on this specific type of PW4000 are hollow and made of titanium. The cracks appear to start from within the surface, making them impossible to detect on the surface. Airlines can use technologies such as ultra sound to find cracks beneath the surface."

        Let's give P&W some credit though for designing an engine that did not blow apart and cut into the aircraft, which has happened before. Apparently the outer cylinder is Kevlar on this or all jet engines.

        Let's worry about maintenance done by low-bid subcontractors, if that was the case.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          It's the same low-bid subcontractor that winterized the electric grid in Texas for ERCOT.

          • Thank goodness the Apollo astronauts didn't fly to the Moon on a rocket built by the lowest bidder.

            (Actually, that is attributed to Alan Shephard, on his sub-orbital Mercury Redstone flight.)

        • Let's give P&W some credit though for designing an engine that did not blow apart and cut into the aircraft, which has happened before.

          This has been standard design procedure for many decades. Engines are destructively tested to ensure that parts are generally contained, and last I remember GE got into a bit of strife when the Boeing 737 engine failed leading to a piece hitting the plane and killing a passenger a few years ago in the USA.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by colfer ( 619105 )

            I was wrong too, there's a big hole under the plane, were the wing joins the fuselage.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by arctor ( 411306 )

        It doesn't matter. After the MAX, when I used to fly (per-pandemic) my travel agent would always book me on Airbus. If it cost a little more or forced me to be creative with times, it didn't matter. I don't want to spend 6 hours having a mini anxiety attack after every hit of turbulence.

        First the MAX, now this? Boeing just doesn't have its shit together.

        This is from the perspective of someone that knows nothing about aircraft. But it's ppl like me voting with our $$ not to fly Boeing.

        In the future, I see a

      • While this may hurt Boeing, they aren't responsible for the engines

        Yes, they are! They select a manufacturer among others. They're not responsible if they use crappy screws?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        And neither is responsible for the maintenance if it turns out that was the issue.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by slazzy ( 864185 )
        It actually looks as though it's related to how the engines are attached to the aircraft wing, the engine kept running just fine even shaking back and forth due to faulty wing design.
    • There is another failure by the way - 747 in Hoilland. Some spectacular pics of turbine blades sticking out of cars underneath. Luckily not out of people: https://twitter.com/hbvl/statu... [twitter.com]

  • How nice of Boeing to deliver modern art into people's yards for free. [wp.com]

    They are so generous and quick, unlike so many other corporations.

    • Faster than Amazon drones. Maybe they should hire United Airlines instead.

    • First, that's a poor cropped picture and you can't see the bottom part of the cowling that was sliced by fan blade shrapnel. Second, Boeing made the plane, but it was Pratt and Whitney that made the PW4000 engine that the airplane uses. My guess is (somebody correct me) the engine is priced around 20 million each.. And the airplane can use different engines.

      This particular engine for this particular airplane (the 777 only) has "hollow fan blades" presumably for efficiency reasons. For me, hearing that expla

      • This particular engine for this particular airplane (the 777 only) has "hollow fan blades" presumably for efficiency reasons. For me, hearing that explained all I need to know about this engine failure.

        Don't fly in an aircraft with Rolls Royce Trent engines then (for example Trent 800s in some 777s). They also have hollow fan blades [youtu.be](*), as well as ventilated single-crystal turbine blades. I would imagine all modern turbofans are similar.

        (*) This is quite an interesting documentary on how RR turbofans are built, although it is showing its age a bit.

    • I would have spray-painted MAGA on it and left it there.

    • I would have requested that the FAA return that to me when the investigation is done. Hack it up and hang it on the wall in my living room.

  • Boeing 747-400 motor two days ago... 777 now... (Score:3)

    by jiriw ( 444695 ) on Sunday February 21, 2021 @10:00PM (#61088330) Homepage

    We had a showering of engine parts in Meersen, the Netherlands two days ago when a motor of a Boing 747-400 cargo plane blew up after take-off from Maastricht airport.
    Both incidents surely are unrelated... but Boeing is definitely catching a lot of 'flak' lately.

    • Re:Joe (Score:5, Informative)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday February 22, 2021 @09:15AM (#61089718) Homepage
      I prefer Juan Brown's (blancolirio's) video on the incident. [youtube.com] He's always on top of incidents as soon as they happen, presents the evidence in a clear way, states facts and opinions separately, and is regularly demonetized by Youtube. In short, he's exactly the kind of person we want to go to for this kind of news, and he doesn't wear his uniform while on camera, either. He had a great one on the final summation of the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash a few weeks ago. [youtube.com]
      • I have no clue why you were downvoted. You didn't trash the other guy, you just said you prefer this guy. I guess only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of mods.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by aitikin ( 909209 )

          I have no clue why you were downvoted. You didn't trash the other guy, you just said you prefer this guy. I guess only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of mods.

          DNS-and-BIND wasn't downmodded. In fact, quite the opposite, mod history as of right now shows "+2 Informative" for that comment. DNS-and-BIND's karma is such trash that any comments start at "-1" inherently currently.

          In case you're unaware, clicking the "Score" portion will pull up moderation history.

          • I see. I always assumed people started at a minimum of 1 and he was at 0 when I saw it. I can't believe after this long I never noticed you could see the mod history of posts other than your own.

            Thanks!
  • Haha, air transport is the safest way to travel. Inspections are regimented. The FAA and NTSB will be all over this.
  • Still better than the 737 Max, think having plane catch fire mid-flight is better than having it nose-dive automatically into the ground. Either way, Boeing sucks!

  • The "raining parts" part... that must happen every time there's been an engine failure in flight? Is the news being over-reported?

  • A Boeing 747 lost parts of its engine on Saturday in what looks like a very similar incident; Engine failure with debris raining down a residential neighbourhood. There is even a picture of a fan blade stuck in the roof of a car: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuw... [rtlnieuws.nl]
  • I would have kept praying instead of recording a video if I were on that plane. But hey that's just me. Maybe that person already feeling hopeless about the whole situation. Can't blame him/her either. What a terrible moment for the passengers. Glad the plane landed safely.

    • Praying accomplishes nothing whatsoever, but shooting video of the engine might actually provide useful information which can be used to help prevent a failure from happening again.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 22, 2021 @07:03AM (#61089440)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by colfer ( 619105 )

      Public authorities with a dedicated revenue source tend to have issues. (See: Port Authority of NY & NJ. Contra: state retail liquor agencies, in states that have them, on the other hand featherbed at the top but do their jobs in my experience.) In this case it's from the ticket tax. To use up the money, small airports end up building gazebos and re-repaving roads and re-re-cutting grass. I wonder if the counties around larger airports have been successful at getting them to use some of their largess f

  • On a daily basis, less airplanes is a good thing. Such a waste of government bailout money and environmental resources. Sure I get it, some people need to fly for things like family events, vacations and such. But there is no longer a need for business people to be flying all over the world on a daily basis when most things can be done via teleconference.

    Someone will bring up flying is faster/cheaper/safer than other ways of travel - sure, but for business do you really need to travel anymore? Stay home

  • The devouring (Score:3)

    by UnixUnix ( 1149659 ) on Monday February 22, 2021 @08:46AM (#61089624) Homepage
    McDonnell ate Douglas, and now McDonnell-Douglas is eating Boeing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

      McDonnell ate Douglas, and now McDonnell-Douglas is eating Boeing.

      From my time at Boeing. . . .that is an accurate summation. . .

  • A lot of planes were grounded for extended periods of time during 2020 and are gradually being returned to service. But complex machinery like this generally does better when itâ(TM)s continually operated.

    I wonder if this was one of those planes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close