http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1055376&TopOfYest=yes

Poor thing, it looks like 2 engines blew up but what caused this and was anyone hurt? I hope no one was hurt but this plane looks like a write off sadly

Of course its more than a little difficult to "guess" what might have gone wrong by looking a picture "after the fact," but the comment in the Remarks section of the Airliners.net post of the picture might yield a clue.

And, no, the airplane is certainly not necessarily a "write-off." You'd be absolutely amazed at what competent airplane mechanics and engineers can do ... give this bird a bit of time in the hangar and it'll be back slipping the surlies in no time!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1055376/M/

Poor thing, it looks like 2 engines blew up but what caused this and was anyone hurt? I hope no one was hurt but this plane looks like a write off sadly

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1055376/M/

Poor thing, it looks like 2 engines blew up but what caused this and was anyone hurt? I hope no one was hurt but this plane looks like a write off sadly

Man airrabbit that fuse and wing look really bad, REALLY bad. I wouldnt guess at the cost of repair but i would think at least half what the plane is worth these days. Might not be worth the effort and money, oh and dont forget the months of repair. That fire must have been hundreds of feet high at moments, really bad wing damage. Sad, i love the AA paint scheme, or lack thereof i should say.

From what I can tell from the photos the airplane is repairable if AAL or its insurance company wants to spend the money.

As for the wing most of the real damage appears to be aft of the rear spar which is mostly relatively easy stuff to replace like flaps, flap track fairings and trailing edge panels. The wing box (the area between the forward and aft spars appears to be intact.

The real question may be the fuselage skin aft of the wing. If the fire was hot enough and lasted long enough it could have warped the skin panels or changed their temper. Those can be replaced too.

I saw a wing engine on an older DC-10 that became unglued in flight - the some of the engine pieces actually penetrated the wing skin the the leading edge of the wing. The damage was repaired.

It's amazing the miracles a Boeing AOG crew can perform when you give them enough money.

From what I can tell from the photos the airplane is repairable if AAL or its insurance company wants to spend the money.

Those of you who said that it is not a write off are out of your minds (no offense). That airplane is completely destroyed. The left wing's flaps are non-existent, the whole undercarriage of the left wing is burned to a crisp, half the engine is missing from the back, and there is extensive burndamage to the left fuselage of the aircraft. It probably costs less to buy a new airplane than to repair and deal with maintenence on that bird after repair. Plus, that triple seven looks like it is a generally new aircraft. Isn't there a warranty on those babies?

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.

... 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.

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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.......................

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.

"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.

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, Remember your posts ?

"should this not be a case for possible removal from ALL AIRLINERS for inspection"

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

NOT SO !

The incident having taken place in the US does not give the FAA due jurisdiction over ALL AIRLINERS.

The FAA are somewhat limited in what they can do in this case with respect to ALL AIRLINERS !
I seriously doubt the FAA will even make such a motion within the US.

A look at the following may clear up your confusion:

ICAO ANNEX 6 -operation of aircraft and ICAO ANNEX 13 - aircraft accident investigations.
Perhaps someone could help you with that.
I did claim that you have been very critical of both GE and Rolls Royce.
I did not claim your criticism was confined to THIS thread !
You are having a hard time proving your points with others on this board. Why not quit now and try something else.

You are very predictable and I expect you'll want to have the last word at all cost.

Go ahead, misunderstand and criticize some more companies/individuals and make yourself look even more aliterate. I'm all done here.

AL

The FAA isn't as "limited" as you say as the ICAO generally follows suit on FAA recommendations.
Anyway, you bore me. Your claims about "others" are rather pretentious and condescending. But you stay true to form nonetheless, taking no responsibility for your comments. Good Luck passing the high school entrance exam, hopefully the paint hasn't deteriorated your already feeble cerebellum..........On to more productive discussion

tripleseven and ALV2500 - Usually I would send a PM or two at times like this but I'm going to make an exception (which I will probably regret) because this, in my opinion has gone TOO FAR! The tone of this little web-based food fight will become more civil or I will lock the thread.

I'll take the high road........................