And now the Boeing 777...

[SiliconWizard]

Sad days for Boeing really.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/faa-orders-stepped-inspections-boeing-777s-after-engine-failure-united-n1258477

Must have been a special experience for the passengers. Seeing that through the windows:

[drussell]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

It's a Pratt & Whitney Dependable Engine fitted on that thing, and serviced by UAL's maintenance team.

[Tom45]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

Yeah, only 777's with the Pratt & Whitney engine are grounded.

[Monkeh]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

It's a Pratt & Whitney Dependable Engine fitted on that thing, and serviced by UAL's maintenance team.

It's the optics of it.

Another PW4000 series on a 747 shed its guts over the Netherlands the same day.. and another United flight (a 737 this time, not a P&W engine) had an engine failure, also the same day. Most aren't going to care about what engine it was - three more Boeings went bad all in one day.

[floobydust]

Apparently that's a titanium fire in the video 

[WattsThat]

Boeing has no culpability in engine failures. Zero. With that logic, we’d ground Airbus 320’s when a Boeing 737 has a CFM56 failure. It’s only the 777-200 that is affected with about 60% of them are currently flying, if that. No one died. It’s P & W that has the black eye, no one else. There have been prior issues with fan blades.

Apparently that's a titanium fire in the video 

Says who? Only the cold, front half of a turbofan uses titanium. The fire was the rear half and that was no titanium fire.

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0457.pdf

If you’re interested in a opinion on the actual failure of the engine without the hyperbole of the media, have a watch. Keep in mind this was done early on Sunday before any qualified eyes had seen the actual engine, this was done from the available information at that point in time. Still worth a watch to learn a thing or two about jet engines from a very knowledgeable guy.

[Monkeh]

Boeing has no culpability in engine failures. Zero. With that logic, we’d ground Airbus 320’s when a Boeing 737 has a CFM56 failure. It’s only the 777-200 that is affected with about 60% of them are currently flying, if that. No one died. It’s P & W that has the black eye, no one else. There have been prior issues with fan blades.

The public does not know or care who makes the engine. They see 'Boeing' and 'Airbus'. Thankfully, they're not the direct customers, but it's still not good for them.

[WattsThat]

No, of course it’s not good for Boeing but then there isn’t much that makes the media circus these days that is positive.

From a current 777-300 pilot with his take on the engine failure with no

[drussell]

Yup, and Juan's original video from right after the incident:

[floobydust]

Apparently that's a titanium fire in the video 

Says who? Only the cold, front half of a turbofan uses titanium. The fire was the rear half and that was no titanium fire.
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0457.pdf

Fuel was shutoff, fire was going on for a very long time.
Another engine fire CFM56-7 HPC Titanium Fire Due to VSV Maintenance Assembly Error (United Boeing 737-924 N30401) 21 February 2019 the housings are titanium so I assumed that was the fuel.

[coppercone2]

there might be titanium keeping it burning but thats not titanium burning as I know it, when you put it on a grinding wheel it makes a bright white spark stream (impress the neighbors and light the trash on fire)

That looks like hydrocarbon fire to me. if there is titanium burning in there it would keep the fuel burning like a pilot light on a stove. I never saw non powder titanium burn but I imagine it looks like magnesium, you don't get any kind of bushy plasma from it, its going to glow white hot and emit alot of grey smoke. I don't know how well those engines turn off or how much is left in the line after turn off or if there are lubricants and stuff there that also burn eventually

[Brumby]

Fuel was shutoff, fire was going on for a very long time.

To me, the fire is quite subdued - and is diminishing all during that clip.  Could it be there was still fuel in the lines between the shut-off and the engine?  Could it be other oil lines or hydraulic lines feeding it?



People really need to stop hypothesising and just wait for those who actually know something have a look and tell us.

[drussell]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

Yeah, only 777's with the Pratt & Whitney engine are grounded.

So you're saying it is somehow the 777's fault?

You would be totally comfortable getting on an Airbus with PW4000s, or a 747?   

[drussell]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

It's a Pratt & Whitney Dependable Engine fitted on that thing, and serviced by UAL's maintenance team.

It's the optics of it.

Well, yeah, especially with the current narrative of "Boeing = Bad."

Another PW4000 series on a 747 shed its guts over the Netherlands the same day.. and another United flight (a 737 this time, not a P&W engine) had an engine failure, also the same day. Most aren't going to care about what engine it was - three more Boeings went bad all in one day.

So you'd also be another person who would be comfortable right now getting on an Airbus with PW4000 engines because it is obviously Boeing's fault that the P&W engine failed catastrophically on a UAL flight?   

[Tom45]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

Yeah, only 777's with the Pratt & Whitney engine are grounded.

So you're saying it is somehow the 777's fault?

You would be totally comfortable getting on an Airbus with PW4000s, or a 747?   

You got that the wrong way around.

777's with the Pratt & Whitney engine are grounded. All 777's with other engines haven't been grounded.

[coppice]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

Yeah, only 777's with the Pratt & Whitney engine are grounded.

So you're saying it is somehow the 777's fault?

You would be totally comfortable getting on an Airbus with PW4000s, or a 747?   

You got that the wrong way around.

I think you worded it the wrong way around. It doesn't seem like "Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?", "Yeah" is what you really meant.

[SiliconWizard]

Are you somehow sure it was Boeing's fault?

It's a Pratt & Whitney Dependable Engine fitted on that thing, and serviced by UAL's maintenance team.

I'm not drawing any conclusion at this point. Only full proper investigation will. All we know is, as said above, all 777's with those engines are now grounded. So, sad times for Boeing. It certainly won't help restoring confidence or help Boeing's business.

[floobydust]

Fuel was shutoff, fire was going on for a very long time.

To me, the fire is quite subdued - and is diminishing all during that clip.  Could it be there was still fuel in the lines between the shut-off and the engine?  Could it be other oil lines or hydraulic lines feeding it?

People really need to stop hypothesising and just wait for those who actually know something have a look and tell us.

At this point, all there can be is speculation and conjecture.
Although amazingly, one blade piece was found in a soccer field in Broomfield and shows signs of metal fatigue.
"Under a microscope, Sumwalt said, "You can actually count the number of (flight) cycles since the initiation of that fatigue."

The fire I think is a second problem, imagine if the plane had to dump fuel.
{NTSB Chair} Robert Sumwalt said "We do have indications that the fuel to the engine was turned off, so we will be looking to see what would have continued to propagate a fire".

[drussell]

Fuel was shutoff, fire was going on for a very long time.

To me, the fire is quite subdued - and is diminishing all during that clip.  Could it be there was still fuel in the lines between the shut-off and the engine?  Could it be other oil lines or hydraulic lines feeding it?

People really need to stop hypothesising and just wait for those who actually know something have a look and tell us.

At this point, all there can be is speculation and conjecture.
Although amazingly, one blade piece was found in a soccer field in Broomfield and shows signs of metal fatigue.
"Under a microscope, Sumwalt said, "You can actually count the number of (flight) cycles since the initiation of that fatigue."

The fire I think is a second problem, imagine if the plane had to dump fuel.
{NTSB Chair} Robert Sumwalt said "We do have indications that the fuel to the engine was turned off, so we will be looking to see what would have continued to propagate a fire".

The misconceptions surrounding the dumping of fuel are covered in the Blancolirio video posted above by WattsThat.

A reasonably thorough description of the flight reverser mechanism where the flames from the burning hydraulic or lubrication oil can be seen is in the AgentJayZ video posted even earlier above, also by WattsThat.

[SiliconWizard]

Note they had another engine fire the same day on a 747: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/22/two-people-injured-by-debris-after-boeing-747-suffers-engine-fire-over-netherlands
Apparently the same engines. That's very unlucky.

There were previous similar incidents in the past. Investigation will tell if they are at all related.

[jmelson]

Apparently that's a titanium fire in the video 

A titanium fire is BLINDING white.  That was apparently a composite thrust reverser component that was closer to smouldering than burning.

Jon

[ve7xen]

There are three main variants of the PW4000, the variant used on the B777 is only used on the B777, and the fan design and diameter is one of the major differences. I'm not sure since public information is a bit scattered and sparse, but I believe the -112 version is the only one with hollow fan blades. Since this was a fan failure, it stands to reason they would only ground engines with similar fan construction.

Bad luck for Boeing, indeed. Not their 'fault' of course, but I wouldn't say they don't deserve it anyway.

[Stray Electron]

Sad days for Boeing really.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/faa-orders-stepped-inspections-boeing-777s-after-engine-failure-united-n1258477

Must have been a special experience for the passengers. Seeing that through the windows:

  That's a sight that you don't see very often! The fact that the engine stayed together (well mostly) and was still running is a testament to it's ruggedness.  Mostly, I would call this event a success.

[coppercone2]

Apparently that's a titanium fire in the video 

A titanium fire is BLINDING white.  That was apparently a composite thrust reverser component that was closer to smouldering than burning.

Jon

there might be some titanium burning in there keeping it alive because think about how fast that plane is going and how thin the air is getting and its not going out. Its like keeping a cigarette lighter lit outside the car window on a freeway not the easiest thing I would imagine. It is going 600 miles per hour,.. though I guess it normally does burn while going at 600MPH and I don't know if there are active mechanisms to keep it lit, or if it works when its all exposed on the same principles. If I recall windproof pocket torch lighters are tested to like 60 MPH. I know they have assists that help them reignite when its raining. I think usually though keeping it burning and spinning is better? Though if it burns the wing it can burn the control routing for the flaps or whatever it has on the wing or on other planes with more engines it can burn the fuel going to the engines that are not shut off so its more important for the fire to go out there ? (b52 comes to mind). I wonder if that one can shut off just one engine or if it does the whole wing (i.e. do planes pump fuel to a engine across another engine that is clearly on fire ?). 

[floobydust]

It's unnerving to see a wide band of flame for such a long time. With that much airflow, it can creep. I thought it was the housing, but there might be hexagonal-celled insulation on the thrust reverser that was the candle wick. The fuel hose and fittings were found on the ground.  As if we know the construction here.

Repairs on the smaller 94"/100": http://training.egyptair.com/Content/Download/CourseMaterials/PW4000%2094-100%20CONFERENCE%202019%20-%20DAY%202.pdf