JAppelbee

I guess its yet another slow news day in the AA Forum.........

Blumie

No reason to bring this to their attention, as I suspect the FAA and NTSB have noticed on their own. I'm sure there will be an investigation, and if a systemic problem is found, corrective action will be taken.

WRCSolberg

To be frank, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. An engine failure is not an uncommon occurance and surely not indicative of a widespread problem. Three or four engine failures in a short period of time, then we can start talking, but otherwise, no.

I can think of more than a few examples where an engine has failed after maintenance, none of these being from AA. Delta had a well known incident a few years ago with one of their MD11s in a very similar incident to this recent one. Delta also had another publicized incident a couple years ago with a 763 on climbout out of ATL. Someone aboard the 763 took video of the engine on fire that was a bit graphic, hence why it got so much attention. While a bit off-topic, this just goes to show these types of failures aren't unheard of.

So basically you don't have any proof of what you're alluding to, and it sounds rather assinine. I agree with a previous poster, you seem to be trying to inject some drama into an event that turned out to be a non-event.

JohnAx

I'd point out that I didn't offer any proof nor make any hypothesis, but merely started by asking a couple of questions, primarily "aren't uncontained turbine failures supposed to be essentially impossible by design?" I did go on to comment that I'd noticed that people who fly lots and lots seemed to be commenting about an increased frequency of mechanical problems.

I realize that engines fail daily, almost invariably with trivial consequences. I don't have much interest in continuing the argument, so I'll leave it to anyone who cares to look up how many of the examples you cite were indeed uncontained like this one, or of the benign category.

Since your counters to my question have become personal attacks rather than intelligent discussion of the issue, I have to assume you guys are part of AA corporate damage control who very specifically don't want anyone bringing extra attention on their maintenance operations, and leave it at that. Otherwise, you would have participated in the discussion in an adult and useful manner.

greggwiggins

Please forgive the obvious question, but did you notice anything unusual, or did the crew on the flight deck mention anything being out of the ordinary?

WRCSolberg

I have no personal stake in this all. But I do think it's rather ridiculous that you're implying this incident could be the cause of shoddy maintenance from ahurting airline.

This thread is straight out of airliners.net. A great deal of assumption and uneducated guessing.

Take my disagreement personally, that's fine, doesn't matter to me.

Fly AA J all the way

For all we know, the only "shoddy maintenance" was that which caused the engine to explode during the test. Maintenance is performed, mistake was made, engine explodes during test, everyone is happy that they tested it, the system works. When a problem this big happens, I tend to assume (right or wrong) that the last person whose hands worked on the project caused the problem. So, as long as engines are tested after maintenance, I'd say it's fair to say pax won't be endangered by this, and AA had better whip their ground crews into shape so they don't have to write off any other planes.

PresRDC

I'm just happy it was a light bulb company engine . . .

tom911

Some new details today:

General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained engine failure which caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing 767-200 at Los Angeles on Friday.

The aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the (left) No.1 engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power response from the engine during the flight.

Reports say the engine was at more than 90% power when the failure occurred, either in the shaft or the high pressure turbine (HPT) area.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...0A+engine.html

FWAAA

Not only light bulbs, but nuclear reactors, MRI machines, railroad locomotives and kitchen appliances.

That fine engine builder in Connecticut isn't quite as diversified.

Night Flyer

Not to mention television shows (NBC) . . .

kanebear

One thing is certain; were AA doing any pencil-whipping prior to this they sure as heck won't be for a while.

PresRDC

True, but the CT company is a division of a larger CT company that owns other well-known CT companies such as Carrier, Otis, Hamilton Sunstrand and Sikorsky.

itsaboutthejourney

or maybe some of those rats got into the engine?

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthrea...1&page=1&pp=15

Flyloha

There is a new article out on this incident. Apparently a piece of metal from the engine flew over a half mile away across two active runways.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/3048421.html