What Happened To This Aa 767-300?, Pic of half burned plane on A. Net Options

[Empress]

Agreed.

[SF3aviatrix]

... I seem to remember a member here proclaiming the wonders of GE engines, and slagging off Rolls Royce products as being inferior because a couple had shed their blades.

If only they were blades...


The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an uncontained engine failure on an American Airlines B-767 that was undergoing testing, June 2, at Los Angeles International Airport.

At 12:27 PST, during a ground maintenance test run, the high-pressure turbine stage one disk on the number one engine (GE CF6-80A2) broke into several pieces that were found embedded in the fuselage, the number two engine, and scattered as far 3,000 feet from the airplane.

Numerous holes punched in the wings by pieces of the engine caused fuel leaks that led to a ground fire that was extinguished by airport fire department personnel. There were no reported injuries to the three maintenance technicians aboard the airplane at the time of the accident.

NTSB investigators were at the accident scene from June 3 to 7. Pieces of the high-pressure turbine disk were recovered and brought to the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington DC, for analysis. Initial examination of the disk pieces found indications of fatigue cracking.

The failed engine has been brought to the American Airlines facility in Tulsa OK, for teardown this week under NTSB supervision.

[JoeyC]

Anything can be repaired, trust me. Its just how much money is involved, and whether or not its worth it.

Bottom line:

Can it be repaired? Yes.
Will it? Probably not.

Although I bet a LOT of stuff in the cabin are worth salvaging, and more than a few things can be kept as spare parts.

[AirRabbit]

This just in ...

Severity was understated in test of jet engine at LAX

Engine on American Airlines Boeing plane blew apart during a check nearly
two weeks ago, causing a fire and sending metal half a mile away.

An explosion that ripped apart the engine of an American Airlines jet during
a ground test at Los Angeles International Airport this month was far more
dangerous than first reported, new details suggest.

The blast was strong enough to hurl an 18-inch chunk of metal more than half
a mile -- across taxiways, service roads and two active runways. Airport
workers found the piece two days later, not far from the airport's perimeter
fence.

The investigation into what caused the engine to explode has focused in part
on tiny cracks found on a key piece of the turbine. An Air New Zealand
jetliner lost the same kind of engine to similar cracks in late 2002 and was
forced to make an emergency landing.

"It was pretty fortunate that no one was hurt," LAX spokeswoman Nancy
Castles said, "and that no planes were taking off or landing at that time."

The Boeing 767 jet had arrived in Los Angeles on a regular flight from New
York City. Its flight crew had reported some kind of mechanical problem, so
the airline sent the plane to maintenance after it landed at LAX.

An airline spokesman would not discuss that initial problem in any detail,
saying only that it was unrelated to the engine failure that followed.
Workers were still trying to figure out what was wrong with the airplane
when they pushed the throttle for both engines, and one of them blew apart.

The explosion outside the American Airlines maintenance hangar on June 2
sparked a small fire that sent a column of dark smoke over the passenger
terminals at LAX and drew most of the initial attention. The explosion --
officially an "uncontained engine failure" -- gutted the engine and
blackened part of the airplane's fuselage.

It also blasted pieces of the engine onto a nearby runway -- and, in one
case, clear across the southern airfield. The workers who found that piece
half a mile away described it as a wedge of metal, 2 inches thick, and
heavy.

Other pieces punched through the airplane's fuselage and wings and embedded
themselves in its other engine, according to a statement released Tuesday by
the National Transportation Safety Board. Robert Ditchey, an aviation
consultant in Marina del Rey who once oversaw maintenance for Pan American
World Airways, called that especially worrisome.

Airline engine systems, he explained, have extra shielding that's supposed
to protect the rest of the airplane from that kind of damage. Pieces of the
engine, he said, "are not supposed to penetrate the fuselage" under any
circumstance.

Three maintenance workers who were on the plane when the engine blew escaped
without injury. Nobody on the ground was hurt, either -- despite the blast
of metal pieces across taxiways and service roads usually swarming with
airport workers.

Two federal agencies are looking into the explosion: the transportation
safety board and the Federal Aviation Administration. Both have offices here
but, in a sign of how important this investigation is, both sent special
investigators from their Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Their investigations will determine whether the flaw that destroyed the
engine was an isolated problem or could affect other airliners still in
service. "I don't think there's any indication right now that this is a
systemic problem," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

Investigators have found evidence of "fatigue cracking" on pieces of a disk
from the engine's turbine, the safety board said in its brief statement.
Such cracks can develop from a microscopic flaw in the metal and weaken
engine parts against the extraordinary stress they must endure.

The same kind of engine, built by General Electric, was the subject of an
FAA order in 2003 that required regular inspections for fatigue cracks. The
order was prompted by the emergency landing of the Air New Zealand plane
after one of its engines spun apart and damaged a wing.

Such cracks are rare, Ditchey said, and should be caught by the rigorous
inspections -- "down to the last nut and bolt" -- that airlines put their
engines through. The materials used to build an aircraft engine, he added,
are "the highest tech of the high-tech. It doesn't get any fancier than
that."

Investigators have shipped pieces of the turbine disk shattered in the LAX
explosion to the transportation safety board's laboratory in Washington,
D.C., for further tests. The engine itself was sent to an American Airlines
maintenance center in Oklahoma.

Airline spokesman Tim Wagner said he did not know how long the airplane had
been in service. He said workers were conducting a routine maintenance check
known as a run-up to diagnose an unrelated issue when the engine broke
apart.

The airline, Wagner said, is "still in the process of refurbishing the
aircraft."

[Chrome777]

this aircraft was a B767-200ER not a 300. dont worry i also though it was a 300 due to the position of the picture.

[tripleseven]

If only they were blades...


The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an uncontained engine failure on an American Airlines B-767 that was undergoing testing, June 2, at Los Angeles International Airport.

At 12:27 PST, during a ground maintenance test run, the high-pressure turbine stage one disk on the number one engine (GE CF6-80A2) broke into several pieces that were found embedded in the fuselage, the number two engine, and scattered as far 3,000 feet from the airplane.

Numerous holes punched in the wings by pieces of the engine caused fuel leaks that led to a ground fire that was extinguished by airport fire department personnel. There were no reported injuries to the three maintenance technicians aboard the airplane at the time of the accident.

NTSB investigators were at the accident scene from June 3 to 7. Pieces of the high-pressure turbine disk were recovered and brought to the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington DC, for analysis. Initial examination of the disk pieces found indications of fatigue cracking.

The failed engine has been brought to the American Airlines facility in Tulsa OK, for teardown this week under NTSB supervision.

I may be overreacting a bit, but based on this failure and the other uncontained failures suffered by the CF-6, namely UA232, and others, should this not be a case for possible removal from all airliners for inspection? Not knowing exact details of course, but it appears to be similar to Sioux City in the fact that a "disk" is once again involved. Maybe they could start the investigation where the disks are actually molded. Obviously something is wrong with some of the CF-6 interior mechanics.........not good

[BIG K]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1059747/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1059746/L/
sad wow

[ALV2500]

I may be overreacting a bit, but based on this failure and the other uncontained failures suffered by the CF-6, namely UA232, and others, should this not be a case for possible removal from all airliners for inspection? Not knowing exact details of course, but it appears to be similar to Sioux City in the fact that a "disk" is once again involved. Maybe they could start the investigation where the disks are actually molded. Obviously something is wrong with some of the CF-6 interior mechanics.........not good

Yes, you are overreacting.

Lets face it, these powerplants run at temps way beyond the melting point of steel, run for thousands of hours, and take all kinds of abuse.

Nothing is perfect. Despite problems from both camps, GE and RR build remarkable engines as the industry's big two.

AL

[AirRabbit]

Yes, you are overreacting.

Lets face it, these powerplants run at temps way beyond the melting point of steel, run for thousands of hours, and take all kinds of abuse.

Nothing is perfect. Despite problems from both camps, GE and RR build remarkable engines as the industry's big two.

AL

Maybe ... maybe not. While I don't disagree with your point about the quality of the engines, there is a rumor (and I truly don't mean to be "propagating" a rumor by repeating it, but...) that is beginning to surface that the FAA is considering review of the ETOPS authorizations originally extended to aircraft with the GE engine.

[tripleseven]

Yes, you are overreacting.

Lets face it, these powerplants run at temps way beyond the melting point of steel, run for thousands of hours, and take all kinds of abuse.

Nothing is perfect. Despite problems from both camps, GE and RR build remarkable engines as the industry's big two.

AL

Umm......engines are DESIGNED to run at high temperatures as part of the normal combustion process, and for thousands of hours.........good call

So by your logic, let's let the turbine and fan disks keep failing?, I'm glad you aren't in charge of an airline...............

In the event that you aren't aware, look up United Airlines Flight 232 on the internet and let's see if you maintain the same opinion.............................

[Outlaw nz]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1059747/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1059746/L/
sad wow

I see there was a Air New Zealand 747-400 in the first photo too, how far away would that have been?

[ALV2500]

zzzzzz

[tripleseven]

I have some plain facts for you.......blades do, and will continue to fail !

Nobody is disputing the fact that turbofans are DESIGNED to run at high teperatures as you put it.
My point, which you missed, is that these engines undergo tremendous stress . This is sometimes in excess of what they were designed for.

I notice that you have been very critical of both GE and Rolls Royce.( I'd like to hear your suggestion for a better manufacturer of turbofans ) I also notice that you have suggested that certain engines from these manufacturers should not be in service. I'm not sure which aircraft you fly, if you do fly. Chances are it's been built by either one of the "big two".

From time to time, an engine will fall short of it's TBO. But, by and large, most of the big turbofans in service have millions of hours in service.

The airlines do not "press the panic button" when an engine has problems, it's a little more complex than that. I myself have no desire to run an airline but I ask you this......

Ever notice that the CEO's of major airlines don't trash Airbus or Rolls Royce , Boeing or GE ?

They leave that up to the coffee table pilots of this world who have no experience of the products beyond pictures in a magazine, or passing them on a taxiway. Instead, they buy and operate them !

My point was simple.

GE and ROLLS ROYCE build remarkable engines. Why even argue the point?

AL

Number 1:
Quote any one of my posts and tell me where I ever trashed GE


Number 2:
If a particular engine type fails, then fails again, with the same type of failure, common sense dictates that somewhere......THERE IS A PROBLEM, therefore it is probably best if the engine is removed from service, and inspected to prevent (ding ding ding) OTHER PROBLEMS.


Number 3:
This particular failure and the other critical failures that this type of engine have sustained were DISK failures. The ensuing blade departures were the least of the engines problems

My point is really alot simpler than yours. Before you respond to a post, do some research and see what was actually said. Then after that, research the topic that you are attempting to debate thoroughly, that way when you do eventually respond, you actually sound competent on the subject matter.


Now dust off that coffee table before you lay the newspaper on it

[ALV2500]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tripleseven]

1) "See what was actually said".......................... ??????????????????????

If you look back and see "what is actually said" as you put it, you will find that I didn't say you "trashed" GE !

I referred to your being "critical" of GE and Rolls, WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN !
If anything needs to be dusted off, it's your glasses or your short term memory !
In any event, it doesnt matter as Your opinion carries no weight..


You wrote:

" based on this failure and the other uncontained failures suffered by the CF-6, namely UA232, and others, should this not be a case for possible removal from all airliners for inspection"

I'm not sure if you are involved in aviation but this is completely unrealistic. I don't foresee the FAA, the CAA and other ICAO members/ operators enforcing this. As I said before, you ARE overreacting...simple as that !
It seems that your knowlege of companies like Rolls Royce and their current position in the airline industry is poor. You are clearly unaware that the majority of airlines worldwide select RR to power their aircraft. I suspect this bothers you for some reason.

There are reasons why the A380 and all variants of the B787 will enter service with RR engines. Obviously, the reasons behind these choices are beyond you.

As for your other inane statement......................

" look up United Airlines Flight 232 on the internet and let's see if you maintain the same opinion."

Why on earth would I change my opinion of the worlds most successful engine makers based on this ?
Regardless of past incidents, I still stand by my view that GE and RR build remarkable engines. Few would argue this fact.

You're making yourself an easy target and I'm getting bored.

AL

It looks like you have a brilliant future in politics ahead of you as you continue to divert attention from the actual subject matter.

The only person even talking about Rolls Royce in this entire thread IS YOU
WTF does Rolls Royce have to do with this thread?

UPDATE:
This thread is about an engine failure sustained by an American Airlines 767 fitted with GE CF680C2 engines
Not Rolls Royce. Do you understand that? Is it clear to you now?

Regardless of what YOU THINK that the FAA will do(which is uneducated speculation anyway).......what they SHOULD DO is remove the engine from service UNTIL ALL fan and turbine disks have been inspected for cracking.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME that this type of failure has occured, odds are IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN unless the above suggestion is heeded. The first time it happened(fan disk failure in flight) caused 184 deaths. What does that tell you?

Idiots who run airlines without a sense of urgency to critical maintenance issues will eventually cause deaths. I'm not saying that the CEO of American falls into that category, because HE didn't know before, but now that he does, and if he does a little research and sees that this failure has happened before, maybe he will take action and mandate inspections on all of the CF6 fan and turbine disks. After that others will probably fall suit especially if the FAA tells them to.

If you noticed in one of the earlier posts, there is some talk that the FAA MAY BE CONSIDERING doing just that.
So....................................

Judging purely by what you post in general, you know jack about aviation and/ or the rules and regulations that govern it. You just change the subject matter when you deem necessary when you post to create the illusion that what YOU say holds weight.

Based on what you post
You may or may not be a member of the European Junior Tallywanker Club of Future Aviation Model Glue Inhalers Association


NOW
Run along little chap, and on your way out, please spray some Endust on that coffee table.......................

[Fluffdoc]

It looks like you have a brilliant future in politics ahead of you as you continue to divert attention from the actual subject matter.

The only person even talking about Rolls Royce in this entire thread IS YOU
WTF does Rolls Royce have to do with this thread?

UPDATE:
This thread is about an engine failure sustained by an American Airlines 767 fitted with GE CF680C2 engines
Not Rolls Royce. Do you understand that? Is it clear to you now?

Regardless of what YOU THINK that the FAA will do(which is uneducated speculation anyway).......what they SHOULD DO is remove the engine from service UNTIL ALL fan and turbine disks have been inspected for cracking.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME that this type of failure has occured, odds are IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN unless the above suggestion is heeded. The first time it happened(fan disk failure in flight) caused 184 deaths. What does that tell you?

Idiots who run airlines without a sense of urgency to critical maintenance issues will eventually cause deaths. I'm not saying that the CEO of American falls into that category, because HE didn't know before, but now that he does, and if he does a little research and sees that this failure has happened before, maybe he will take action and mandate inspections on all of the CF6 fan and turbine disks. After that others will probably fall suit especially if the FAA tells them to.

If you noticed in one of the earlier posts, there is some talk that the FAA MAY BE CONSIDERING doing just that.
So....................................

Judging purely by what you post in general, you know jack about aviation and/ or the rules and regulations that govern it. You just change the subject matter when you deem necessary when you post to create the illusion that what YOU say holds weight.

Based on what you post
You may or may not be a member of the European Junior Tallywanker Club of Future Aviation Model Glue Inhalers Association


NOW
Run along little chap, and on your way out, please spray some Endust on that coffee table.......................

If reality matched your opinion of airline maintenance then we should be have at least two or three fatal crashes a day. I've been hanging around airlines for more than 20 years and have yet to see any being run by idiots and no proof of your hallucinations. Bad maintenance leads to accidents which leads to bad business which leads to out of work CEOs. So as you can see, it is not in management's best interests to skimp on maintenance.

As for inspections of GE fan and turbine disks, that's a great idea if the investigation leads to that conclusion. While there have been previous instances of fan and turbine disk failures, what needs to be looked at is if there is a common thread. The UAL DC-10 accident was due to a microscopic manufacturing flaw made many years before the failure. Since the NTSB and FAA have not come to a conclusion about the AAL incident it may be a bit premature to make the airlines to jump through their booties and start pulling disks out of engines and inspect them. What do you suggest they look for? They are already inspected during shop visits. It is quite possible that the AAL failure was due to a previous repair to the disk. The HPT and LPT shafts on the engine are sheard so it may be a possibility that they may have failed first, causing the disks to come apart.

FYI - That engine was an CF6-80A, not an 80C2.

[ALV2500]

zzzz

[tripleseven]

If reality matched your opinion of airline maintenance then we should be have at least two or three fatal crashes a day. I've been hanging around airlines for more than 20 years and have yet to see any being run by idiots and no proof of your hallucinations. Bad maintenance leads to accidents which leads to bad business which leads to out of work CEOs. So as you can see, it is not in management's best interests to skimp on maintenance.

As for inspections of GE fan and turbine disks, that's a great idea if the investigation leads to that conclusion. While there have been previous instances of fan and turbine disk failures, what needs to be looked at is if there is a common thread. The UAL DC-10 accident was due to a microscopic manufacturing flaw made many years before the failure. Since the NTSB and FAA have not come to a conclusion about the AAL incident it may be a bit premature to make the airlines to jump through their booties and start pulling disks out of engines and inspect them. What do you suggest they look for? They are already inspected during shop visits. It is quite possible that the AAL failure was due to a previous repair to the disk. The HPT and LPT shafts on the engine are sheard so it may be a possibility that they may have failed first, causing the disks to come apart.

FYI - That engine was an CF6-80A, not an 80C2.

80A or 80C2, they are variations of the SAME engine type. Also, if you haven't seen any idiots in your 20+ years Fluffdoc, then explain the American and Continental Airlines of the 70's and 80's that removed their Cf-6s with forklifts after being specifically told by the engine manufacturer not to. Also, I mentioned the 232 accident as a possible lead for investigation into these failures.

What I suggest they look for first, are those same flaws within the disks. In regards to the shafts, if the disks fail is it not possible that the pieces of disks that remained threw the shafts out of balance causing them to shear off?

All I'm saying is that there could very well be that "common thread" between these failures, and the better to take at the very least, the engines with the most cycles or hours out of service........................Just my .02

[tripleseven]

"The only person even talking about Rolls Royce in this entire thread IS YOU
WTF does Rolls Royce have to do with this thread?"
Again your short term memory is failing you.........I refer to your prior post ON THIS VERY THREAD !

I hate to gloat.. but I seem to remember a member here proclaiming the wonders of GE engines, and slagging off Rolls Royce products as being inferior because a couple had shed their blades.

I guess the race for "inferiority" is now tied.

YOU WROTE:

"That would be me, although it wasn't a "newer" engine like the Trent, it was a failure nonetheless. Good thing it happened on the ground "

It's clear you are a little confused with respect to the FAA. FAA regs only govern US aircraft, not all aircraft in service !

Like I said, you have been very critical of RR and GE as well as those who run the airlines.......I'm wondering what position you hold.

Seems like I'm not the only one who questions your veiws. Good luck getting through Fluffdoc, I'm out.

Being as the engine failed in the US, the FAA holds due jurisdiction Einstein. Good Call, again stating the obvious, your specialty

Also, I didn't mention the Rolls Royce, IT WAS MENTIONED TO ME, and I COMMENTED ON IT, your very quotes proved that.

Also remember this?--------->The coffee table pilots of this world who have no experience beyond pictures in a magazine, seem to like to trash the likes of Airbus, GE, and RR.

I haven't "trashed" either manufacturer in this thread so again I ask you...... what does that have to do with any of the subject matter concerning the GECF6 powerplant that failed IN the US, on an American Airlines aircraft?

While you may not be the only one to question my views, you definitely ARE the only one that doesn't know about aviation, or what you are talking about......so.......go sniff some of your model paint.

[Fluffdoc]

80A or 80C2, they are variations of the SAME engine type. Also, if you haven't seen any idiots in your 20+ years Fluffdoc, then explain the American and Continental Airlines of the 70's and 80's that removed their Cf-6s with forklifts after being specifically told by the engine manufacturer not to. Also, I mentioned the 232 accident as a possible lead for investigation into these failures.

What I suggest they look for first, are those same flaws within the disks. In regards to the shafts, if the disks fail is it not possible that the pieces of disks that remained threw the shafts out of balance causing them to shear off?

All I'm saying is that there could very well be that "common thread" between these failures, and the better to take at the very least, the engines with the most cycles or hours out of service........................Just my .02

Tripleseven you need to untwist your shorts.

First off while the -80A and -80C2 are the same engine type they are still different engines. The -80C2 is a full FADEC engine while the 80A is not. They are not interchangeable.

I stand by my statement about not seeing any idiots in my 20+ years as a rep. As for CAL and AAL removing engines with a forklift, that was before my time - and the industry and the FAA have both changed a lot since then. And it wasn't the engine manufacturer that told them not to use that procedure - it was McDonnell-Douglas who was responsible for developing the procedure which is in the aircraft maintenance manual, not the GE engine manual.

Maybe you should pass your ideas about what to look for to the FAA and GE instead of confining them to this board. I'm sure they would greatly benefit from your expertise. Apparently you don't think those two organizations have enough expertise to figure this thing out. Or do you think they can't be trusted? As for taking the engines with the most hours or cycles out of service, what do you suggest the airlines replace them with? You think they have a whole bunch of spare $3-$5 million engines just sitting around? They don't.