Jump to content

Boeing 777 engine explodes over Denver


Recommended Posts

Looks like the fan has disintegrated. She'd shake all right.. What's left of that won't be worth much. Probably have much more drag that a "normal" engine failure too which would have to be allowed for in the approach planning. You would likely have a commit point  early on final where no go round would be possible.  as you do with a double engine failure on a 3 engined plane . Most likely a good effort by the crew. Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All modern twin engined Boeing jets have the capability of a single engine go around from at least a CATII minima (100’).  I am not sure about early series B737.  The B767 ( of which I was very familiar), could execute a single engine go around off a CATIIIA minima, 20’, where the aeroplane actually touches down and then takes off again.  The B777 and B787 would not have quite the single engine performance of a B767, but they would have more advanced capability in terms of what they are actually certified for.  I don’t actually know, but probably CATIIIC.

There is no commit point for any of the 2 engined Boeings as they are all easily capable of single engined go arounds at their respective MTOWs let alone their respective MLWs. The definition of the performance capabilities required are stated in the relevant CAO.  In the case of the GE powered B767, the aircraft was not thrust limited, but altitude limited. In other words, it had so much thrust, the engines could take to an altitude where the airframe would no longer fly.  

The commit point for a 2 engined landing on any of the B747 types operated by Qantas was at “gear down”.  Procedurally on a 2 engined approach this was at 800’.  The B747-400 could go around on 2 engines at MLW (287tons).


There was no commit point for a 3 engine landing on any of the B747s. 
 

The issue now for the B777 is the apparent failure of the fire suppression system. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines have to carry Public Liability insurance to cover any damages awarded against them for injury or death or property damage caused to parties on the ground.

 

There is a legal term, "res ipsa loquitur", which is used in such lawsuits that eventuate from aircraft or aircraft parts, injuring or damaging people or property, on the ground.

 

This legal term simply means negligence can be inferred from the very nature of an accident or injury (to people or property on the ground), in the absence of direct evidence on how any (aircraft/airline) defendant behaved.

 

Surprisingly, the legal attitude towards injury or damage caused by aircraft to people and property on the ground, has changed over the decades - from flying originally being regarded as a great hazard to those on the ground, to one where flying is now regarded as being lower risk to people and property on the ground, than that surrounding motor vehicle use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "normal" engine out performance figures don't  allow for extra damage and associated drag such as this situation was... If the entire engine detaches you are better off drag  wise..  Normal is when the engine windmills when it fails.. Nev 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I am sorry but that is incorrect.
 

The actual checklist is titled, “Engine Fire, Severe Damage, or Separation Non Normal Checklist”.   The checklist has a number of recall items at the beginning and a number of reference items later in the list. There are no allowances for different configurations of damage for performance.  There are some Non Normal Checklists that do impose some performance consideration (eg, some Hydraulic failure configurations). 

 It makes little or no difference on a high bypass fan engine whether the fan is turning or not to the performance capability of a Boeing twin on single engine operation.  The public can be rest assured that modern Boeing twin engined aircraft are not wanting for performance on one engine.  

For any who might be interested, CAO 20.7.1b gives all the regulatory performance requirements for Twin Engined Aircraft with a MTOW in excess of 5700kg.  
 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...