You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Reality Hipcheck within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Thank god this did not happen with people on board or in flight.
Subject: GE disc failure, 2 June 2008
Check this out. Happened to an AA 767.
> The
Thank god this did not happen with people on board or in flight.
Subject: GE disc failure, 2 June 2008
Check this out. Happened to an AA 767.
> The disc went through
> > the aircraft into the OTHER engine.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether you will have heard about
> this as it appears to have
> > been hushed up over the weekend. On Friday during a
> ground run at LAX, GE
> > CF6 in the number one position let go on an American
> Airlines 767. Two
> > taxiways were closed while bits of disc were
> retrieved. Attached are some
> > photos, one of which shows half a disc sticking out of
> an engine. In
> > fact,
> > the disc belongs to the other engine - it's passed
> through the centre wing
> > box and embedded itself. Undoubtedly, this would have
> brought down the
> > aircraft had this happened in service. The rear
> fuselage and port inboard
> > flaps were toasted as combustor exit gases escaped and
> hit the airframe,
> > which has to have been written off.
> >
> > Interestingly, photos of it were uploaded onto various
> websites on Friday
> > evening. As of this morning almost all of them have
> gone, including any
> > of
> > the aircraft as a whole. This obviously has some
> pretty serious
> > implications for twin-engined aircraft.
> >
> >
An uncontained engine failure like that is nasty, to say the least. But to say that this has "pretty serious implications for twin-engined aircraft" is somewhat sensationalistic. There are usually one or two occurrences of this sort per year in the U.S. And very rarely are they this extreme or this damaging to the aircraft. And they very rarely lead to loss of life or property beyond the aircraft.
I'd be willing to bet that the overall damage would have been MUCH less had this happened in-flight. Keep in mind that this aircraft was run to maximum power on the ground. This is something that is rarely done during line flying (most takeoffs are at greatly reduced thrust settings). Even if the turbine disc had let go during takeoff or in-flight, the lower power setting and even the motion of the aircraft through the air would have caused a much different pattern of damage and almost no damage to the fuselage by the post-failure fire.
These machines are unbelievably complex, yet we take them for granted on a daily basis due to their reliability. This is one of those things you can put into the "Yeah...It happens" file.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
I do find it quite remarkable (lucky?) that we've gone - what - several years now without a US airliner plunging to the ground or water mid flight for no reason. We're either very overdue for a rash of these, or our inspections and maintenance was so crappy before that things were bound to improve.
Knock on wood. Being that most of our maintenance on our jets are done in other countries where the labor cost is $9 an hour compared to $80 hour.
That is 100% untrue. And even the maintenance that is done outside the U.S. is done by FAA licensed contractors and is subject to inspection by FAA and company inspectors.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Last edited by FlyBoeingJets; July 15th, 2008 at 07:28 AM.
That is 100% untrue. And even the maintenance that is done outside the U.S. is done by FAA licensed contractors and is subject to inspection by FAA and company inspectors.
Actually it is true, maybe not 100 percent true but still.....
American and Delta do a majority of their own maintenance. Many of the other airlines farm a good percentage of their maintenance out. Much of this maintenance is done in places like El Salvador. Outside of the US borders the only requirement is that the maintenance supervisor is a licensed aircraft mechanic where in the US all maintenance workers are licensed.
The truth is airplanes have ever been safer to fly. Much of this is by improved avionics and flight systems. Additionally the turbines used today are so much more advanced than they were 20 or even 10 years ago. Aircrafts are under such little stress that they can fly safely for decades, then get sold to third world airlines or cargo companies and fly for even more decades.
Not, it isn't true. The statement was that most maintenance was outsourced. That statement is patently false. SOME maintenance, certainly. But not most. Most maintenance that an aircraft goes through is line-oriented. That means that it happens while an aircraft is performing it's day-to-day flying...either in-between flights or during an aircraft's overnights at the carrier's maintenance facilities here in the states.
Heavy inspections and heavy engine maintenance have, somewhat, been outsourced to locations in other countries. But those maintenance inspections occur relatively infrequently compared to all other maintenance the aircraft receives. Each airline has different maintenance schedules, so intervals between heavy inspections are different not only for type but for company.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Not, it isn't true. The statement was that most maintenance was outsourced. That statement is patently false. SOME maintenance, certainly. But not most. Most maintenance that an aircraft goes through is line-oriented. That means that it happens while an aircraft is performing it's day-to-day flying...either in-between flights or during an aircraft's overnights at the carrier's maintenance facilities here in the states.
Heavy inspections and heavy engine maintenance have, somewhat, been outsourced to locations in other countries. But those maintenance inspections occur relatively infrequently compared to all other maintenance the aircraft receives. Each airline has different maintenance schedules, so intervals between heavy inspections are different not only for type but for company.
I suppose it depends on what airline you're flying.
Just because something is outsourced for a fraction of what it costs here in the US doesn't mean quality is degraded. While the short-run cost savings might appear beneficial, sacrificing quality (and safety in the situation of airliners) will cost them much more in revenue (and possibly result in the loss of the business entirely) due to lost customers.
Not, it isn't true. The statement was that most maintenance was outsourced. That statement is patently false. SOME maintenance, certainly. But not most. Most maintenance that an aircraft goes through is line-oriented. That means that it happens while an aircraft is performing it's day-to-day flying...either in-between flights or during an aircraft's overnights at the carrier's maintenance facilities here in the states.
Heavy inspections and heavy engine maintenance have, somewhat, been outsourced to locations in other countries. But those maintenance inspections occur relatively infrequently compared to all other maintenance the aircraft receives. Each airline has different maintenance schedules, so intervals between heavy inspections are different not only for type but for company.
Ok, yes I was refering to the "bigger" maintenance issues, not day to day, in between flights and so on. And yes, this info did come from a mechanic that was disassembling a Cessna 210 that landed belly up and was being frieghted down to Brazil where it will cost the new owners (after insurance auctioned it off) about a quarter of the cost, bring it back and sell it on controller.com.
That graph shows outsourcing as a percentage of total expense. This stat is extremely misleading because heavy inspections of airframe and engines are by necessity far more expensive than any other maintenance that is done on-line. Those percentages don't mean squat, because they'd be the same percentages if the work was done here.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
That graph shows outsourcing as a percentage of total expense. This stat is extremely misleading because heavy inspections of airframe and engines are by necessity far more expensive than any other maintenance that is done on-line. Those percentages don't mean squat, because they'd be the same percentages if the work was done here.
So you want to give the same weight to checking the air pressure of the tires and fixing toilets as you would to heavy maintenance?
Who knew replacing an ignitor was as simple as replacing the filter on the galley coffee maker.
767 test at LAX 
Go Kings
No One
