Air Accident / Incident thread

Adyx

Irish Steve wrote: »

And to add fuel to that fire, if you'll excuse the pun, this is not the first incident of this nature with the PW engine, there was a very similar case, also on a 777, in 2018, as a result of a main fan blade failure, and among other things, it did look at though the fan is not complete on the latest case, if this turns out to be another blade failure of a similar type, there will be a significant inquiry, as it appears that the 2 airframes are of a similar age.

The 2018 incident highlighted an issue regarding blade inspections, so I'd hope that given the elapsed time, all the relevant inspections that could have come out of the 2018 incident will have been carried out and reported on.

Both United flights to Honolulu and sequential tail numbers too.

RadioRetro

United have grounded 24 777s with the same series of PW engines.

JohnC.

RadioRetro wrote: »

United have grounded 24 777s with the same series of PW engines.

The Japanese regulator also ordered JAL and ANA to ground theirs.

Then Boeing told everyone to ground them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/22/boeing-777-grounded-by-airlines-after-faa-japan-issues-emergency-order

There were 69 in service and 59 in storage.

Initial examinations shows 2 blades fractured.

Nijmegen

From the FT (behind a paywall)... This might just be bad timing but:

In a separate incident at the weekend, a Boeing 747 cargo aircraft powered by a smaller version of the engine was forced to turn back after parts of the engine dropped off shortly after take-off from Maastricht in the Netherlands. It is not clear whether the two incidents are related.

Feels like an age related legacy issue in any event, possibly affecting 69 in service aircraft, certainly not another MAX. But bad for the Boeing brand - punters hear "Boeing airplane" rather than "P&W Engine"

0lddog

Nijmegen wrote: »

From the FT (behind a paywall)... This might just be bad timing but:....."

747F sprinkling P&W parts around Holland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyp2rp5wX4Q

Everything cool

4 donks good, 2 donks bad

RadioRetro

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

knucklehead6

RadioRetro wrote: »

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

That's a bit of a panic reaction IMO.

Even the headline is sensationalist "more than 230 people were uninjured when blah blah blah"

Nijmegen

knucklehead6 wrote: »

That's a bit of a panic reaction IMO.

Even the headline is sensationalist "more than 230 people were uninjured when blah blah blah"

Tbh if the engine does have a tendency to disintegrate it would be just some policymakers luck that a piece of the next one would land on some 99 year old war veteran on his way home from his Covid vaccination if they didn't ban it while the fleet was being looked over.

john boye

"More than 230 people were uninjured" is a very sexy way to say nobody was injured.

HTCOne

RadioRetro wrote: »

The British government has banned any 777s with the same PW engines as the United flight from UK airspace.

http://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

Bit pointless after the manufacturer and national regulators of the only airlines operating them already grounded them but hey ho makes them look like they've done something.

Irish Steve

Japan had previously banned all of the affected 777's from operating in their airspace, so it's not just the UK that are taking this action.

The ultimate irony of this whole scenario is that the replacement aircraft that operated the flight to Honolulu was the aircraft that had the same type of incident in 2018. I wonder how many people that travelled on it were aware of that snippet of news.

billy few mates

Roger_007 wrote: »

I assume that it would not still have its original engines. How often are engines renewed/overhauled on aircraft like these?

No, the engines might have been replaced for numerous reasons over the years, often for commercial reasons like managing and planning shop visits by installing them on aircraft tied to longer or shorter flight sectors depending what you're trying to do. They may also be removed and swapped to save leasing costs (if the engines are leased) because you might have to pay a premium once the use of the engine exceeds a certain number of hours or you might be liable for the cost of a shop visit based on this.
Modern engines are not really overhauled the way they were in the old days but they have a number of components (like discs for example) that are called life limiting parts (LLPs) that have to be replaced before they reach their limits but these can all have different limits and thresholds so depending on usage you might have to send it to a shop to replace one LLP and then send it back again a few years later to replace a different LLP. Otherwise they're mostly subject to 'on condition' monitoring.
In theory if you never have any unscheduled maintenance events like a bird strike or FOD and you don't approach the LLP limits you might never have to send the engine to a shop at all though you might have to temporarily remove them from time to time for pylon inspections.
At the same time you could also have the same engine installed over the entire life of the aircraft, and replace all the LLPs as they fall due but it would be like Trigger's brush in the end.

CJhaughey

Any more info on the PC-9 that suffered engine failure near Baldonnel?

Hotblack Desiato

When was that? They often fly right over my house...

ohlordy

Something tells me the notion that it glided for 30km is a bit far fetched, though no doubt it was a bit of a scare for the two onboard

Hotblack Desiato

Typical media BS

Power loss is not the same as power failure and I doubt they "glided it in" at any point.

TreeMaker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Typical media BS

Power loss is not the same as power failure and I doubt they "glided it in" at any point.

The aircraft did indeed glide in

Mr.Crinklewood

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

Hotblack Desiato

TreeMaker wrote: »

The aircraft did indeed glide in

Source?

Eddie Dillon

It was a full engine failure and the aircraft glided back with a stationary prop.

xper

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

No, that was one of their new PC-12s. Saw it myself circling low several times over Dundrum area at about 4/4:30. Could have been holding on the approach to Baldonnel while they dealt with the emergency or may have been unrelated, cant tell.
The aircraft with the engine problem was a PC-9. The only one that shows up on Flight Radar playback from yesterday afternoon was up over Kildare at well over 10,000 ft heading directly toward Baldonnel before decending and circling a couple of times over the airfield while doing so, if that was the one, they had the luxury of plenty of height to play with. Would not always be the case in their ops.

TreeMaker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Source?

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

Negative_G

TreeMaker wrote: »

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

Being an armchair quarterback will do that to you.

No analysis of a PC-9 glide ratio, atmospheric conditions.

smurfjed

TreeMaker wrote: »

What makes you doubt the aircraft glided?

of course it will glide, that’s what it’s designed to do, however to “glide” 30 kms, he would have to have had a rather high starting altitude and speed.

Storm 10

They were at 16 thousand feet so had the height

Question mark about engine. Australia source:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaf-pilatus-pc-9/a-crashes

A Royal Australian Air Force Pilatus PC-9/A trainer crashed yesterday afternoon at RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria after a suspected engine failure.

At approximately 1515 yesterday afternoon RAAF flying instructor Squadron Leader Bruce Collenette, 45, and instructor trainee Flight Lieutenant Steve Andrews, 28, were undertaking a routine training flight when their engine suddenly cut out.

On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately nine kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale. Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. They did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway and chose to eject from the aircraft in accordance with well-practiced RAAF emergency response procedures. The aircraft crashed on the edge of RAAF Base East Sale about one kilometre short of one of the runways.

Following a swift search and rescue response by base emergency personnel, both pilots were assessed by medics at the scene as being stable but were kept at hospital overnight for X-rays and precautionary observation. They're both said to be in good spirits, but Flight Lieutenant Andrews has been transferred to Melbourne for further testing and specialist care.

An Aviation Accident Investigation Team is today onsite at RAAF Base East Sale commencing an investigation into the incident.

As a precaution, all RAAF PC-9/A flying operations, including the RAAF Roulettes aerobatic team, have been temporarily suspended while the cause of the incident is investigated.

As was widely reported in the lead-up to the event, the RAAF Roulettes were almost ruled out of performing at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon Airport in early March because of an engine problem that had grounded the entire RAAF PC-9/A fleet in February. They borrowed aircraft from another unit and received approval to perform their aerobatics routine, but this latest incident raises more questions about the PC-9/A engines.

UPDATED – The RAAF has grounded its fleet of Pilatus PC-9/A turboprop trainers after PC-9 A23-039 callsign ‘Aladin 71’ crashed on May 18 at RAAF East Sale after a “suspected engine failure” during a routine training flight.

The accident, which occurred at around 3.15pm, saw the two crew – QFI SQNLDR Bruce Collenette and instructor trainee FLTLT Steve Andrews from Central Flying School – eject safely “about 1 kilometre short of a runway, on the edge of the base”, according to Defence.

“On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately 9 kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale,” a Defence statement reads.

“Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. The crew did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway, so ejected from the aircraft in line with standing procedures.”[/quite]

smurfjed

Storm 10 wrote: »

They were at 16 thousand feet so had the height

5000 meters in height to 30000 meters in distance ? What is the glide ratio of a PC9?

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

5000 meters in height to 30000 meters in distance ? What is the glide ratio of a PC9?

Apparently 16:1 glide ratio

Psychlops

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Was it this plane?

https://twitter.com/realBobbyHealy/status/1365336129550098434/photo/1

No, that was XRAY280 which is one of the PC12's, FOX261 was the aircraft involved which is a PC9M.

Psychlops

Deleted User wrote: »

Question mark about engine. Australia source:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaf-pilatus-pc-9/a-crashes

UPDATED – The RAAF has grounded its fleet of Pilatus PC-9/A turboprop trainers after PC-9 A23-039 callsign ‘Aladin 71’ crashed on May 18 at RAAF East Sale after a “suspected engine failure” during a routine training flight.

The accident, which occurred at around 3.15pm, saw the two crew – QFI SQNLDR Bruce Collenette and instructor trainee FLTLT Steve Andrews from Central Flying School – eject safely “about 1 kilometre short of a runway, on the edge of the base”, according to Defence.

“On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately 9 kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale,” a Defence statement reads.

“Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. The crew did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway, so ejected from the aircraft in line with standing procedures.”[/quite]

Thats from 2011, good find & read, thanks.