oops - open engine latch on transcon flight
#31


Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Programs: MYOB
Posts: 1,456
Ha - as a traveler, I really wanted to get to SFO and not make a landing in the middle of the country to close it. As an engineer, I observed multiple latches, no vibrations, and figured if this was all it took to bring down a 737-700, we'd have known about it by now.
I figured I'd ding my call button if things degenerated
And we landed without incident.
I figured I'd ding my call button if things degenerated
And we landed without incident.
) Yes, this might be difficult to see on a walk around. However, it may not have been in that state when they left the gate. Those latches are usually pretty good. It takes a "double click" (not like a computer mouse) to open/close them. Some of the taxiways the country are pretty rough. If the acft was taxiing at a good rate, on a bumpy taxiway....and it was not FULLY latched to start with, it may have popped open. Not likely certainly, but at least feasible/possible. As another poster indicated.... ^ for redundancy.
#32


Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Homosassa, FL & Ringwood, NJ -UA-G(Lifetime); SPG-Plat (Lifetime)
Posts: 6,122
I had my instructor simulate an engine failure (777) after V1 and before takeoff at one of the DOs. The plane gets off the ground by the end of the runway (as it should). The only difference is that it handles 'sluggishy' when turning as you would expect and turns more slowly since the computer has already used a lot of the rudder deflection authority to keep the plane straight when it sensed the malfunction. I would expect 100% of commercial pilots to handle this problem and get the plane back safely.
#33
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle
Programs: exUA, WN
Posts: 203
Look at AA 191, it wasn't the engine falling off the plane that caused the crash. It was the engine beating the wing to pieces and destroying the hydraulics as it went by...
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Actually every twin engine commercial airliner built today can keep flying with one engine failed during pretty much every phase of flight.
It's actually worse from a yaw control standpoint to simply have one engine shut off during takoeff (rather than actually fall of the aircraft) because the drag that the failed engine creates adds to the yawing moment that the functioning engine on the other side creates. That yaw has to be overcome by the rudder and tail to keep the aircraft flying. If the engine simply fell off that drag goes away. All of this assumes that there isn't some larger structural problem with the wing of course.
It's actually worse from a yaw control standpoint to simply have one engine shut off during takoeff (rather than actually fall of the aircraft) because the drag that the failed engine creates adds to the yawing moment that the functioning engine on the other side creates. That yaw has to be overcome by the rudder and tail to keep the aircraft flying. If the engine simply fell off that drag goes away. All of this assumes that there isn't some larger structural problem with the wing of course.
I know this was a long time ago, but let's not forget the one time an engine actually fell off was the horrific accident of AA 191.
As others have written, the problem wasn't so much the lack of power or balance, but that the engine that fell sliced through much of the hydraulics making the a/c impossible to control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus. Eurobonus Millionaire
Posts: 38,683
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Remember, in the AA 191 incident, the engine fell off, and because of intake fan rotating at high speed, a "helicopter effect" was created, it flew above the wing and sliced right through the entire wing.
No technology can ever change those basic physics...
There was recently an incident of an engine falling off (or more accurately being released by a safety mechanism) in Africa. In that case, there was no damage, and the plance landed safely (it was a 737).
Here is a link to the story:
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-08/w...el?_s=PM:WORLD
I think a more analogous incident to what might have happened in this case, was the QF A-380 incident, when an engine failure in the engine sheared a panel off the engine nacelle. In that case, there actually was quite severe hydraulic damage, but the pilots were able to land safely.
Had that same incident occurred on take-off, it's not as clear what the outcome might have been.
Last edited by TWA Fan 1; Jan 30, 2012 at 7:45 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist



Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Plat
Posts: 13,342
But if the liberated cowl damages the slats and the pilot doesn't know it, you may end up with asymmetric slat deployment and that has ended poorly in the past.
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus. Eurobonus Millionaire
Posts: 38,683
f this incident. Wikipedia says this:
Problems with DC-10s were discovered as a cause of the accident, including deficiencies in design specifications and maintenance procedures which made damage very likely.
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Again, I'm not so sure that the design changes are really the key, but they have certainly made modern a/c safer than the DC-10.
But the real cause of this incident was AA's maintenance procedure which did not follow McDonnell Douglas's guidelines, in order to save time.
As a result, the engine was not properly attached to the nacelle, and that was the primary cause for the accident.
But if a catastrophic incident of this type were to occur on take-off, there is very little safety margin before the a/c reaches its stall speed. With one engine down and possible damage to the airframe and hydraulics, this would be a very tough situation to master, even in a modern a/c and with an experienced pilot.
#40




Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Programs: AA Exec Plat / DL-Silver / Hyatt - Glob / Hilton-Gold
Posts: 1,594
The previous poster assumed the engine would fall off. If that happened during take-off, I'm not sure the outcome would be nearly as clean as your scenario assumes.
I know this was a long time ago, but let's not forget the one time an engine actually fell off was the horrific accident of AA 191.
As others have written, the problem wasn't so much the lack of power or balance, but that the engine that fell sliced through much of the hydraulics making the a/c impossible to control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191
I know this was a long time ago, but let's not forget the one time an engine actually fell off was the horrific accident of AA 191.
As others have written, the problem wasn't so much the lack of power or balance, but that the engine that fell sliced through much of the hydraulics making the a/c impossible to control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191
An AA 727-200 lost an engine ("lost" is a common term for an engine failure) enroute from DFW to SAN in April 1985. The mechanic meeting the flight on arrival was dumbstruck as to what he found. He reported to the crew they had lost #3. The crew replied, yea, without warning they lost #3. The mechanic had to repeat, no, you lost #3, it isn't attached to the plane. The engine was never found.
Engine mounts are actually designed to have a breakaway threshold. If an engine were to shed a few fan blades, yet remain running until the crew reacts, the resulting out-of-balance at 50,000RPM could shake the wing to pieces. The preference is to have the engine fall off.
DL had a 737-200 engine breakaway on takeoff from DFW (1990's ??) Flight returned for landing. The engine separated from the wing, but remained on the aircraft with some cables designed for such (on the -200, the engines are mounted on/underneath the wing, not on a pylon forward/lower of the wing as on newer models). I don't remember, but think the engine mounts broke at their breakaway point even though the engine wasn't (otherwise/prior to the break) in trouble.
Back to the OP, having the cowling come off is not too serious. The higher concern would be the damage it might cause as it rips away and then possibly strikes other parts of the plane.
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
If the crew of AA191 had known that the slats on the left wing had retracted then they could've selected flaps up/slats retracted. While the climb would be sluggish, the NTSB determined that they would've been able to return to ORD. The problem with the DC-10 was a design fault that a complete loss of the hydraulic pressure on one wing could happen w/o affecting the other wing and that there was no cockpit indication of such an abnormal configuration. The crew handled the emergency exactly per the info presented to them, that #1 engine had failed. A roll to the left would be expected. They were not expecting the extreme roll caused by slats up on the left wing and down on the right. The official cause of the accident was an "asymmetrical lift condition". The loss of the engine was only a "contributing factor".
An AA 727-200 lost an engine ("lost" is a common term for an engine failure) enroute from DFW to SAN in April 1985. The mechanic meeting the flight on arrival was dumbstruck as to what he found. He reported to the crew they had lost #3. The crew replied, yea, without warning they lost #3. The mechanic had to repeat, no, you lost #3, it isn't attached to the plane. The engine was never found.
Engine mounts are actually designed to have a breakaway threshold. If an engine were to shed a few fan blades, yet remain running until the crew reacts, the resulting out-of-balance at 50,000RPM could shake the wing to pieces. The preference is to have the engine fall off.
DL had a 737-200 engine breakaway on takeoff from DFW (1990's ??) Flight returned for landing. The engine separated from the wing, but remained on the aircraft with some cables designed for such (on the -200, the engines are mounted on/underneath the wing, not on a pylon forward/lower of the wing as on newer models). I don't remember, but think the engine mounts broke at their breakaway point even though the engine wasn't (otherwise/prior to the break) in trouble.
Back to the OP, having the cowling come off is not too serious. The higher concern would be the damage it might cause as it rips away and then possibly strikes other parts of the plane.

An AA 727-200 lost an engine ("lost" is a common term for an engine failure) enroute from DFW to SAN in April 1985. The mechanic meeting the flight on arrival was dumbstruck as to what he found. He reported to the crew they had lost #3. The crew replied, yea, without warning they lost #3. The mechanic had to repeat, no, you lost #3, it isn't attached to the plane. The engine was never found.
Engine mounts are actually designed to have a breakaway threshold. If an engine were to shed a few fan blades, yet remain running until the crew reacts, the resulting out-of-balance at 50,000RPM could shake the wing to pieces. The preference is to have the engine fall off.
DL had a 737-200 engine breakaway on takeoff from DFW (1990's ??) Flight returned for landing. The engine separated from the wing, but remained on the aircraft with some cables designed for such (on the -200, the engines are mounted on/underneath the wing, not on a pylon forward/lower of the wing as on newer models). I don't remember, but think the engine mounts broke at their breakaway point even though the engine wasn't (otherwise/prior to the break) in trouble.
Back to the OP, having the cowling come off is not too serious. The higher concern would be the damage it might cause as it rips away and then possibly strikes other parts of the plane.

The issue is indeed the damage caused by the engine ripping away, and it is hard to predict what would happen in another take-off incident.
#42
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM; IHG Spire; HH Diamond; Marriott Gold (UA); National Executive Elite
Posts: 669
See what happens when you run out of duct tape?
#43




Join Date: May 2001
Location: HNL
Posts: 1,076
Slightly OT, but as AA 191 was mentioned, it reminds me of one of my favorite stories about my wife.
A few years ago she was flying MCO-ORD and realized that coincidentally, it was May 25th and the flight number was 191 (United). This was a very eerie coincidence for her. When she was a very young girl, her family was going to Los Angeles for a wedding on May 24, 1979 on AA 191. However, they had to drive to ORD from their home in SBN and ended up missing their flight, so AA rebooked them for the same flight the next day. The next day, she and her family would have been on AA 191, however by chance they showed up at the airport early and the airline put them on the next earlier flight. Being long before the cell phone age, they were all safely en route to LAX when 191 went down, and everyone in LA had no idea they had gotten on an earlier flight.
Another eerie coincidence is that the infamous DL crash of an L1011 in DFW due to a thunderstorm downdraft was also flight #191. Perhaps that number should have been retired.
A few years ago she was flying MCO-ORD and realized that coincidentally, it was May 25th and the flight number was 191 (United). This was a very eerie coincidence for her. When she was a very young girl, her family was going to Los Angeles for a wedding on May 24, 1979 on AA 191. However, they had to drive to ORD from their home in SBN and ended up missing their flight, so AA rebooked them for the same flight the next day. The next day, she and her family would have been on AA 191, however by chance they showed up at the airport early and the airline put them on the next earlier flight. Being long before the cell phone age, they were all safely en route to LAX when 191 went down, and everyone in LA had no idea they had gotten on an earlier flight.
Another eerie coincidence is that the infamous DL crash of an L1011 in DFW due to a thunderstorm downdraft was also flight #191. Perhaps that number should have been retired.
Last edited by Wx4caster; Jan 30, 2012 at 11:27 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: May 2006
Location: SEA or BGR, Lower Earth Orbit
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 17,295
If there was a clean break, well, see above.
#45




Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487

