Boeing again. This time the 777 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Boeing again. This time the 777

I suspect this will be more mud on the FAA for piss poor oversight and failure to ensure reasonable inspection intervals.

Apparently hollow fan blades are failing and they are requiring emergency inspection and expect that problems will be found. That plane was ~30 years old IIRC. Old things break. You hope that the regulators are on the ball and forcing inspection intervals that catch the overwhelming majority of issues on the ground instead of waiting for catastrophic failure in the air.
 
Yup, can confirm...I'd probably poo myself if I saw that.

Can't wait to see the reason for the failure of this one. Considering pieces were falling off the plan it's a wonder that there was no structural damage during it tearing itself apart. Good on the pilots for keeping their wits about them and putting it back down safely.
 
So who will pay for property damage repairs?
Boeing or United Airlines?

Hope they don't take years to pay out - if I was one of those home owners I'd be ****** if it took longer than 2 weeks to get money for repairs.
Sucks when you have new material next to old one as the colour mismatch would annoy me.

Good to see no one died....wouldn't want to think about what would've happened if those pieces hit a school or day care..
 
POWERMAN said:
So who will pay for property damage repairs?
Boeing or United Airlines?

Hope they don't take years to pay out - if I was one of those home owners I'd be ****** if it took longer than 2 weeks to get money for repairs.
Sucks when you have new material next to old one as the colour mismatch would annoy me.

Good to see no one died....wouldn't want to think about what would've happened if those pieces hit a school or day care..
Click to expand...
I don't know probably neither. Comp claim on the crushed truck and probably similar on the house damage I would think. The "right" thing to do would be for UA/PW/Boeing to fund the low six figures required and tell the guy to go buy a new truck on their dime and send them the contractor bills. I doubt that happens.
 
GreyGhost said:
I don't know probably neither. Comp claim on the crushed truck and probably similar on the house damage I would think. The "right" thing to do would be for UA/PW/Boeing to fund the low six figures required and tell the guy to go buy a new truck on their dime and send them the contractor bills. I doubt that happens.
Click to expand...
Insurance will pay out and their rates will skyrocket because insurance.

OR...claim gets denied because falling airplane parts aren’t covered.
 
GreyGhost said:
I don't know probably neither. Comp claim on the crushed truck and probably similar on the house damage I would think. The "right" thing to do would be for UA/PW/Boeing to fund the low six figures required and tell the guy to go buy a new truck on their dime and send them the contractor bills. I doubt that happens.
Click to expand...
Fear that a simple compensation would start a landslide of me-toos. I now have phobias etc.

That cowling was huge. I never get to see one where the size is apparent. It would make a nice garden border or surround for a kiddy pool.

Park the truck at the airport with a sign on it "Fly United". See if that speeds up a settlement.
 
We have some turbine domain experts around here, right? How bad is this actually? The fan case did its job, airplane landed fine. I'm sure it was disquieting to see flames coming out the thrust reverser but it kinda seems like they didn't see it necessary to shut the engine down. I wasn't expecting planes to be grounded over this, but I could easily be grossly misunderstanding the situation.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
We have some turbine domain experts around here, right? How bad is this actually? The fan case did its job, airplane landed fine. I'm sure it was disquieting to see flames coming out the thrust reverser but it kinda seems like they didn't see it necessary to shut the engine down. I wasn't expecting planes to be grounded over this, but I could easily be grossly misunderstanding the situation.
Click to expand...
They try very hard to avoid uncontained engine failure as by definition, at that point you have high-energy shrapnel flying around that may impact critical systems (or people). Even a contained engine failure makes a big mess of that engine but isn't as big a threat to the plane (mainly control issues if it happens at critical moments of flight). The pieces I have seen so far are just fairings so from what I've seen, this was a contained engine failure and it happens (although they would still prefer it didn't).

Maybe the FAA is gunshy and wants a record of inspection on file as they are worried about getting disbanded if they have more incidents where they sucked at oversight (max 8, B-17 and others have had the lack of oversight by FAA directly listed as contributing factors).
 
TwistedKestrel said:
We have some turbine domain experts around here, right? How bad is this actually? The fan case did its job, airplane landed fine. I'm sure it was disquieting to see flames coming out the thrust reverser but it kinda seems like they didn't see it necessary to shut the engine down. I wasn't expecting planes to be grounded over this, but I could easily be grossly misunderstanding the situation.
Click to expand...

Anything uncontained is never good, but honestly, despite the panic, this particular aircraft was never in any significant risk. Big jets are designed to be able to fly on a single engine, the fire was minimal at best, and the plane was otherwise unaffected and flew as normal for an engine out scenario.

The engine most certainly was shut down but it was probably residual fuel and lubricating oil that was still burning despite the fire surpression system surely having been deployed when the cockpit received a fire notification. This level of fire and such would happen on a contained engine explosion as well, but the cowlings would just hide what was otherwise visible in this video.

The grounding was surely to check the engines across all fleets to see if this is something that's going to happen again - checking for cracked blades other other signs this may be a more common problem now that it's happened once. Despite this uncontained failure ending well, the next one may cause more damage or sever hydraulics for flight controls etc.
 
GreyGhost said:
They try very hard to avoid uncontained engine failure as by definition, at that point you have high-energy shrapnel flying around that may impact critical systems (or people). Even a contained engine failure makes a big mess of that engine but isn't as big a threat to the plane (mainly control issues if it happens at critical moments of flight). The pieces I have seen so far are just fairings so from what I've seen, this was a contained engine failure and it happens (although they would still prefer it didn't).

Maybe the FAA is gunshy and wants a record of inspection on file as they are worried about getting disbanded if they have more incidents where they sucked at oversight (max 8, B-17 and others have had the lack of oversight by FAA directly listed as contributing factors).
Click to expand...

With the move to twin engine from quads and triples one could understand concerns.
 
Surprise surprise, Boeings culture of money over safety is still going strong. More FAA investigations happening.

www.cp24.com

US examining Boeing's treatment of safety-related employees

A small group of Boeing engineers who perform key safety tasks are raising concerns about their ability to work free of pressure from supervisors, and their comments are prompting federal regulators to take a broader look into the company's safety culture.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

According to an FAA letter, one of the employees said, “I had to have a sit down with a manager and explain why I can't approve something.” The worker indicated that the company shopped around for another employee in the engineering unit.

The FAA surveyed 32 of the roughly 1,400 Boeing employees who are deputized to work on the FAA's behalf. Of those surveyed, one-third raised concerns. The FAA said in the letter to Chicago-based Boeing that it will follow up by surveying all employees in the unit.
 
Boeing again again. A good discussion of their epic fail of a QC system and how a door managed to fly off in flight.

viewfromthewing.com

Boeing Whistleblower: Production Line Has "Enormous Volume Of Defects" Bolts On MAX 9 Weren't Installed - View from the Wing

A reader at respected airline industry site Leeham News offered a comment that suggests they have access to Boeing’s internal quality control systems, and shares details of what they saw regarding the Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines that had a door plug detach inflight, causing rapid...
viewfromthewing.com viewfromthewing.com
 
GreyGhost said:
Boeing again again. A good discussion of their epic fail of a QC system and how a door managed to fly off in flight.

viewfromthewing.com

Boeing Whistleblower: Production Line Has "Enormous Volume Of Defects" Bolts On MAX 9 Weren't Installed - View from the Wing

A reader at respected airline industry site Leeham News offered a comment that suggests they have access to Boeing’s internal quality control systems, and shares details of what they saw regarding the Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines that had a door plug detach inflight, causing rapid...
viewfromthewing.com viewfromthewing.com
Click to expand...
That's a Boeing problem, AC has none of that model in the fleet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom