الكل
← Back to Squawk list
United Boeing 767 Suffers Fan Blade Separation, Diverts To Shannon
A United Airlines Boeing 767-300ER with registration N675UA performing flight UAL134 from New York, United States to Zurich, Switzerland diverted to Shannon after experiencing technical issues. The aircraft, a 21-year-old Boeing 767-300ER was en route to Zurich when it suffered technical issues over the Atlantic, it was subsequently decided by the crew to declare an emergency and divert to Shannon, Ireland... (www.aviationweekly.org) المزيد...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The Pilots and Crew did what Pilots and Crew are trained to do. A catastrophic disaster was averted and all were safe. Everyone deserved a bit more than meal vouchers and hotel.
On Monday a Delta Airlines Boeing 757-200 performing flight 339 from Atlanta to Seattle suffered a cabin depressurization over Kansas and subsequently diverted to Denver.
The article below the fan blade seperation story.
The article below the fan blade seperation story.
wow. so flying at 30K ft and losing 50% engine power, that plane must have hurried to lower elevation I'd think or it would fall out of the sky?Am I wrong? Or can one engine compensate enough to slowly go lower to 20k ft or so ?
Here’s an aviation writer’s blog post on this incident, which discusses among other things the reasons for descending when an engine fails:
https://christinenegroni.com/united-767-makes-emergency-landing-as-engine-quits-on-zurich-flight/
https://christinenegroni.com/united-767-makes-emergency-landing-as-engine-quits-on-zurich-flight/
She claims it happens with some regularity. Is that true? That doesn't make me feel real good about it. If it happens with some regularity, what's the change it will happen to both engines on the same flight?
The writer’s claim that an engine fails during an ETOPS flight with “some regularity” is infuriatingly vague: some actual numbers drawn from ETOPS experience would help in understanding the risk.
Assume for argument’s sake there’s a 1 in 10,000 chance an engine will fail. I’m not a statistician, but seems to me that would mean there’s a 1 in 10,000 squared, or 1 in 100,000,000 chance that both engines would fail. Plus, the chance that the first engine failure happens exactly at the point of longest flying time from a suitable alternate runway would be a lot less than 1 in 10,000. Whatever the actual numbers are, there’s a vanishingly small chance that a double engine failure puts an ETOPS flight into the drink.
Assume for argument’s sake there’s a 1 in 10,000 chance an engine will fail. I’m not a statistician, but seems to me that would mean there’s a 1 in 10,000 squared, or 1 in 100,000,000 chance that both engines would fail. Plus, the chance that the first engine failure happens exactly at the point of longest flying time from a suitable alternate runway would be a lot less than 1 in 10,000. Whatever the actual numbers are, there’s a vanishingly small chance that a double engine failure puts an ETOPS flight into the drink.
Losing one engine while at cruise does NOT require expedited descent. Usually it is described as " Drifted " to lower altitude, say 20k feet. The remaining engine will increase rpm, then develop increeased thrust from increased air density at the lower altitude
