Post: #1

Video of incident Involving an American Airlines flight at Chicago O'Hare

Post: #2

Any details? I can't find anything else.

Post: #3

If I was there, I'd get a lot farther away. Planes can make a pretty big fire ball. Being close to an explosion is not as cool as it looks on TV

Post: #4

The aircraft blew an engine during the takeoff roll.

Post: #5

(10-29-2016 10:33 AM)RIslander Wrote:  The aircraft blew an engine during the takeoff roll.

Eerily similar situation to the awful crash of America Flight 191 at O'Hare in 1979. Fortunately they got the roll stopped before whatever V speed (sorry not really an aviation guy) was hit that would require them to either lift off or end up running off the runway.

In the 1979 crash the engine nacelle actually separated from the wing at the pylon due to improper maintenance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A...Flight_191

There'll be a major investigation, as uncontained engine failures are a Very Bad Thing that theoretically aren't supposed to happen with modern jet passenger aircraft.

(10-28-2016 08:34 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  If I was there, I'd get a lot farther away. Planes can make a pretty big fire ball. Being close to an explosion is not as cool as it looks on TV

The fuel wasn't atomized by an impact, it's just sitting in the tanks, so while it can burn intensely there likely wouldn't be a detonation. But yeah, I'd want to be farther away in any event.

Post: #6

Pilots are trained to abort the takeoff before Decision Speed/V1 (130-150 knots) for engine failures/fires and continue after V1. If they abort after V1 it will likely result in going off the end of the runway. Modern jet aircraft are designed to take off single engine after hitting this speed, clear all obstacles and handle an engine fire quite well. The aircraft would be moving through the air at over 180 knots, which would assist in keeping the fire more tame than it burning up while stationary. A 767 engine also has two halon extinguishers to help put out the fire. If the fire cannot be contained, the engine pylons are designed to burn up and release the engine before the fire spreads into the wing, while allowing the aircraft to continue flying.

Post: #7

So someone would potentially be killed by an aircraft engine falling out of the sky ?

Post: #8

(10-29-2016 12:52 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  So someone would potentially be killed by an aircraft engine falling out of the sky ?

I imagine a falling engine would, statistically speaking, cause less damage than a falling airplane.

Post: #9

^ i figured but just imagine that it would be terrifyingly hilarious to watch an engine fall down the sky. It's Just something you would never expect.

Post: #10

Trump's divisive rhetoric caused this accident.

Post: #11

(10-29-2016 12:33 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Pilots are trained to abort the takeoff before Decision Speed/V1 (130-150 knots) for engine failures/fires and continue after V1. If they abort after V1 it will likely result in going off the end of the runway. Modern jet aircraft are designed to take off single engine after hitting this speed, clear all obstacles and handle an engine fire quite well. The aircraft would be moving through the air at over 180 knots, which would assist in keeping the fire more tame than it burning up while stationary. A 767 engine also has two halon extinguishers to help put out the fire. If the fire cannot be contained, the engine pylons are designed to burn up and release the engine before the fire spreads into the wing, while allowing the aircraft to continue flying.

That's amazing.

You're saying that pilots are instructed to, essentially, fly the plane while and engine is LITERALLY ON FIRE after they reach decision speed? They just fly to their destination, no biggie?

That's crazy and awesome at the same time.

Post: #12

(10-30-2016 12:38 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 12:33 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Pilots are trained to abort the takeoff before Decision Speed/V1 (130-150 knots) for engine failures/fires and continue after V1. If they abort after V1 it will likely result in going off the end of the runway. Modern jet aircraft are designed to take off single engine after hitting this speed, clear all obstacles and handle an engine fire quite well. The aircraft would be moving through the air at over 180 knots, which would assist in keeping the fire more tame than it burning up while stationary. A 767 engine also has two halon extinguishers to help put out the fire. If the fire cannot be contained, the engine pylons are designed to burn up and release the engine before the fire spreads into the wing, while allowing the aircraft to continue flying.

That's amazing.

You're saying that pilots are instructed to, essentially, fly the plane while and engine is LITERALLY ON FIRE after they reach decision speed? They just fly to their destination, no biggie?

That's crazy and awesome at the same time.

I assume he means follow through with take off then land as quickly as possible. They wouldn't continue on to destination following a major failure.

Post: #13

^
That's what I figured. Still, the discussion of being in air long enough for the engine to fall off the plane----scratch that. I don't know enough about aviation engineering to discuss this topic intelligently. I just thought it was interesting.

Post: #14

(10-30-2016 01:02 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  ^
That's what I figured. Still, the discussion of being in air long enough for the engine to fall off the plane----scratch that. I don't know enough about aviation engineering to discuss this topic intelligently. I just thought it was interesting.

If the engine fire occurred not during take off, but mid-flight, a good distance from an airport, that seemingly could occur.

If the fire occurred during take off, provided that the blaze wasn't too overpowering, they'd most likely be able to loop around an get the plane back on the ground before the fire burned through the pylon.

Post: #15

(10-29-2016 11:03 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 10:33 AM)RIslander Wrote:  The aircraft blew an engine during the takeoff roll.

Eerily similar situation to the awful crash of America Flight 191 at O'Hare in 1979. Fortunately they got the roll stopped before whatever V speed (sorry not really an aviation guy) was hit that would require them to either lift off or end up running off the runway.

In the 1979 crash the engine nacelle actually separated from the wing at the pylon due to improper maintenance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A...Flight_191

There'll be a major investigation, as uncontained engine failures are a Very Bad Thing that theoretically aren't supposed to happen with modern jet passenger aircraft.

AA 191 was quite different than what happened yesterday, in a different time period. The incident in '79 was caused faulty rigging due to improper maintenance, which led to complete separation of the engine and damage to left wing hydraulics and electrical systems. What's interesting to note is that it wasn't the physical loss of the engine that made the plane crash, it was the fact that the pilots stalled the aircraft (though you could hardly blame them). Here's an interesting explanation from the Wikipedia article's discussion section:

Quote:The actual cause of the crash was an inadvertant design flaw in that the triple/quadruple redundant hydraulic lines ran in parallel through the wing in close proximity to each other such that mechanical/impact damage to one line was likely to result in similar damage to the others. Losing (literally) an engine should not have been a problem, the aeroplane was quite capable of being flown after the loss, indeed the pylon is designed to allow the engine to fall away if it is vibrating dangerously. It was the resultant destruction of the hydraulic system that caused the crash. This was avoidable if the hydraulic system had been better thought out when it was being designed.

If the hydraulic lines supplying the slats had been routed better then damage to one may have left at least one system still with fluid in it. Better still, would have been not relying on hydraulic pressure to keep the slats extended during such critical regimes as take-off and landing. If both the slats had remained in the extended position then it is quite likely that the DC-10 would have landed safely.

Of course, with loss comes learning. The old DC-10s were put under incredible scrutiny, as were all civilian aircraft. Planes were re-designed and their maintenance enhanced.

So, amazing as it seems, yesterday's flight was never in any real danger save for when they had stopped-- that's when a plane is most vulnerable to fire (read about Saudi Flight 163).

Is it rare? Yes, exceedingly so-- for the passengers and crew, probably on the same magnitude as winning the powerball. But a similar incident happened a few years ago on a Qantas flight to Singapore and the plane circled the runway for two hours until they came back to land.

Post: #16

Skipped an oil change.

Post: #17

(10-30-2016 12:38 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 12:33 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Pilots are trained to abort the takeoff before Decision Speed/V1 (130-150 knots) for engine failures/fires and continue after V1. If they abort after V1 it will likely result in going off the end of the runway. Modern jet aircraft are designed to take off single engine after hitting this speed, clear all obstacles and handle an engine fire quite well. The aircraft would be moving through the air at over 180 knots, which would assist in keeping the fire more tame than it burning up while stationary. A 767 engine also has two halon extinguishers to help put out the fire. If the fire cannot be contained, the engine pylons are designed to burn up and release the engine before the fire spreads into the wing, while allowing the aircraft to continue flying.

That's amazing.

You're saying that pilots are instructed to, essentially, fly the plane while and engine is LITERALLY ON FIRE after they reach decision speed? They just fly to their destination, no biggie?

That's crazy and awesome at the same time.

The aircraft's engine fire checklist directs the pilot to "land as soon as possible". The definition of that is the nearest runway that is long enough and with high enough visibility for an instrument approach. If taking off from an airport where visibility a takeoff is legal(usually 500'+), but a return to landing is not(1200'+), the crew must make sure that they have a takeoff alternate. A takeoff alternate is a suitable landing airport within one hour flying distance, in still air, with one engine inoperative.

Engine fires in the air are generally less hot and uncontained than on the ground due to 180-300 knots of airflow going through the engine. On the ground they get nasty quick.

Post: #18

Too bad that NTP isn't here anymore. I'm sure he'd be able to Google this topic better than any of us.