The incident you are referring to occurred on November 3, 1973 when a man aboard a National Airlines DC-10 flight had an engine blow up at forty thousand feet. However, in that incident, there was much more damage around the window allowing more room for the man, who was reported to be of average size, to be ejected from the plane. The man’s body was found as skeletal remains and did not show any indications of having struck the engine. By the way, this man was in his seat belt and according to witnesses he had eight to ten inches of slack in the belt.

(Written on 2018/04/24)(Permalink)

Additionally, another Airbus 380 belonging to Quantas Airlines suffered an uncontained engine failure in mid flight. The cowling and main fan housing on all these failures contained the main fan debris for mere seconds which is long enough to keep the debris from doing major damage to the fuselage or other engines. In all of the previous examples each plane landed without further incident. A pretty good record in comparison to ten or so years back.

(Written on 2018/04/22)(Permalink)

As late as February of this year a United Airlines Boing 777 had a catastrophic engine failure as the engine began to “fall apart in mid flight. The 777 made a safe landing and taxied to the gate under its own power. In Septemer of 2017, an Airbus 380 owned by Air France suffered a catastrophic uncontainable engine failure in route from Paris to Los Angels

(Written on 2018/04/22)(Permalink)

My first post failed so to repeat. There is some confusion as to whether the seat belt was secure. It is possible that someone released the buckle in an attempt to pull the passenger back in. It is also possible that her seat belt was re fastened when she was returned to her seat. To many conflicting statements to issue a final call on this one. However, it should be noted that due to her physical size it has been determined that she could not have physically fit through the window. Since there are no other incidents reported where the inner and outer glazing have been blown out there is nothing to compare this incident to. Will have to wait for the final NTBS report on this one. An aircraft at altitude flying over 500 miles an hour with a passenger partially out of the fuselage pretty much creates a situation that cannot be survived.

(Written on 2018/04/21)(Permalink)

As late as February of this year a United Airlines Boing 777 had a catastrophic engine failure as the engine began to “fall apart in mid flight. The 777 made a safe landing and taxied to the gate under its own power. In Septemer of 2017, an Airbus 380 owned by Air France suffered a catastrophic uncontainable engine failure in route from Paris to Los Angeles. An Airbus 380 owned by Quatas Airlines suffered a similar fate in 2010 when one of its engines again suffered a non contained engine failure. No injuries occurred with any of these flights. So the possibility of engine failures do exist and normally are not life threatening. Before better technology was introduced some fifteen years ago, these could have been fatal to all passengers on these flights. However, containment, if only for a few moments as the main blades break loose, keeps the large sections of debri from entering the cabin causing major damage to the airframe and supporting structures. It is sad that there was a loss of

(Written on 2018/04/21)(Permalink)

I’m sorry, what is the first incident you are speaking of. There have been many main fan failures over the last forty years but the attempt has been to maintain or trap the debris from such a failure by keeping it inside the main blade housing. Great improvements have been made in this effort in the last ten years or so with the implementation of kevlar linings inside the housing. This is the same material used in bullet proof vest. A main fan blade rotating at 20,000 to over 30,000 RPM can have the force, in some instances, of over 20,000 pounds if it separates from the main shaft. Keep in mind these are just generalized numbers because the actual RPMs and centrifugal weights vary greatly with the size of the engine. The point here is that containing such a catastrophic failure is a major undertaking. Every engine designed must go through a blade out test to prove that the blade and fragments can be maintained within the housing. These test are very expensive and require the total dest

(Written on 2018/04/21)(Permalink)

From what we know, according to passengers and cabin crew, the passenger did not have her seat belt fastened. The plane was at cruising altitude therefore the “fasten seat belt” light was off. As a pilot, this is why we often suggest that while seated all passengers should remain safely fastened in their seat belt. There are a lot of unknowns in the sky’s and one bad thermo pocket can send things, and people, tumbling. Sadly, if a window is compromised the initial loss of cabin pressure can be devastating to the planes structural integrity and have the vacuum effect equivalent to that of a ping pong ball being sucked into a vacuum cleaner hose. Not a very pleasant scenario and one that occurs very, very infrequently. Though we are trained to react very rapidly to these conditions, not all situation can be contained and controlled as rapidly as we would wish. Though a life was lost, the flight crew made very aggressive decisions that may have saved many more lives. They should and have b

(Written on 2018/04/21)(Permalink)

There have been quiet a few folks here questioning why the pilots did not use a diversion airstrip and set the 330 down on the ground. There are several probables to this question. With the extended times given in ETOPS (rules that govern how far away a twin engine can fly from a diversion airstrip), the allowable time is set at 120 minutes plus 15% once an airliner's indicated speed drops below 389 knots. I know, in some cases ETOPS is set at 180 minutes, but this perimeter is used for special long haul equipment, normally designated as "E" for extended range. But back to ETOPS concerning this flight 836. ETOPS is designed for an engine out scenario so in a case like flight 836 where you have dual flame outs, the rules of engagement change dramatically. The first rule as a Captain is to go to Engine Status on the MFD and make a determination as to the cause of loss of power. Just like in an automobile, if your engine suddenly shuts down without a warning, you go to the gauges. Fuel? OK

(Written on 2015/05/31)(Permalink)

You are referring to flight 242 departing Huntsville, Al, in route to ATL on Aprill 4, 1977. These types of tragedies are very rare today due to far better power plants and better weather routing by airline dispatch personnel. The cause of flight 242 going down was attributed to extreme weather producing rain at the rate of eight to ten inches an hour and large hail being ingested into the engines. The flight level was somewhere around 16,000 feet at the time of the engine failures and restarts were impossible for the P&W 72 engines. Today's engines are capable of water ingestion of greater than twelve inches an hour, greatly due to the higher bypass ratio of today's power plants. In short, this flight disaster could have been avoided with better weather information to the flight crew. The section of Hwy 92 still has a brass placket at the crash site listing all those who lost their lives that day in New Hope, GA. This accident is still used as an example for ATP flight training today.

(Written on 2015/05/30)(Permalink)

Felipe, very good point. The Trent engines are fairly easy to restart due to the programming in the Rolls engines. They will continue to attempt restarts unless the PIC de sides to override and attempt a manual start but it is far better to allow the Rolls to attempt auto start. Descending allows better and more powerful spooling for the restart. This of course is best with both power plants out. With a single failure, bleed over assist and the auto-throttle up, to maintain cruise, makes the restart much easier.

(Written on 2015/05/30)(Permalink)