Almost identical incident happened 3 years ago - the same type (B777-200), the same engine (PW4077), the same operator (United Airlines), the same side (right engine), the same failure (unconfined engine failure).
From the report on the previous incident (Feb 2018), it looks like NTSB determined that the root cause was a cracked fan blade in the engine that should have been spotted on a previous inspection but wasn't. That doesn't just implicate this type/engine; it implicates the inspection procedures in general.
That quoted ground observer. Do they work for the NTSB or something?
I am 110% certain that if I saw a plane on fire in the sky, I would not have the presence of mind to remember the term "cloud deck", let alone the rest of those details.
Ground observer: "Good sir, I do say that the cloud deck was quite low so I didn't get a good look, but the engine was mildly louder than usual, and possibly had smoke, but perhaps not, and appeared to be under control the whole time."
Me, probably: "AAAAAAAAAAAAA PLANE ON FIRE IN THE SKY, RUN!!!"
It's very likely that they're an AvHerald reader. It's the absolute de facto gold standard website in its field, and sensationalism and drama is not appreciated -- a large chunk of the usual audience are aviation professionals. My dad was a pilot, and I've got some few hours myself. You can bet that if either of us watched this event happen, we'd mentally be documenting it as best as we possibly can, both to try to predict any useful information (e.g should we try to move!), and for any subsequent investigation.
The excellent safety record of aviation originates from a detailed and pedantic paper trail that is written in blood. It's by learning as much as possible from every incident, without fear of censure or blame, that makes the skies safer for everybody.
No offense towards the average bear, but I would probably have dictated a statement the same way.
I’m not an average bear though. I regularly read and refer to things learned from airlines and other high criticality career fields, and talk about them at conferences. My sister is an airline pilot and I might have been if I wasn’t medically disqualified.
I do participate in government emergency response work and that looks like the type of statement that would come from a trained observer who knows how to express directionality as unambiguously as possible.
I grew up about 5 miles from an airport and for many years I had a recurring dream that I was looking out the window at an airliner that looked odd somehow or other, until I realized with growing horror it was going to crash in the back yard.
I never saw anything like it in real life, nor was it ever a concern for me whether I was in a flight path when deciding where to live, but evidently my subconscious had a "to do" list that included "be prepared for planes dropping out of the sky".
Strangely, I didn't have nightmares ever that I can remember about being on a plane in distress. Even though as I got older I got more anxious about flying.
You'd be surprised. Years back, I saw what looked to be a near midair collision, including a smoke trail from one of the involved aircraft, and watched for a while from the front right seat of the Jeep my boss was driving us to a job site in. Presence of mind isn't really an issue. You're more just trying to understand and follow what you're seeing.
Today, of course, I'd be watching through my 500mm lens and taking pictures all the while. This was long before I got back into photography, though, and long before you could get a 500mm tele that didn't cost as much as a car. Even so, it was interesting, not frightening - remember that the sky is a long way away, and so are most things that happen there, weather notwithstanding.
I recently listened to one of the radio correspondents (Herbert Morrison) [1] that was observing the hindenberg coming in - and it amazed me the things he thinks of while he's talking about it (how the people waiting for the passengers will be distressed) and the eloquent language used. ("Oh, the humanity!")
That said, he definitely also got distressed, but mostly remembered to describe.
That's crazy, in the Netherlands today there was another flight that dropped engine parts (much smaller though, they're said to have been turbine blades) that hit cars and people. It was also an airliner (747-400).
Considering how rare an occurrence is, it's really weird to have both happen on the exact same day.
By the way I'm surprised that fire keeps going on the B772. I assume the fuel was cut off, especially as the turbine seems to be just spinning in the wind. I'd imagine the remaining fuel would burn off quickly?
This would really be scary being a passenger (especially when you know the wing it's hanging under is full of fuel).
In fact, mathematicians were hired during the Battle of England to estimate whether the Germans were aiming for specific buildings (“why is there a cluster of bombs around this church???” or around some secret offices) or just spreading randomly. Verdict: They weren’t aiming, it was random chance that bombs made some clusters onto some buildings. This is what random looks like: No even distribution, sometimes you get a cluster which looks like a series.
There is a saying, something like "once is bad luck, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action". So, if you get more than two big planes crashing in the same day, it's likely something like Al Qaeda (sp?) on 2001/09/11. If it's two planes, it's likely bad luck.
WRT the debris video: personally, I would be paying more attention to looking for anything falling in my direction. The debris may flutter like falling paper, but they are much more substantial.
today was quite weird for Boeing airplanes, as well as for United. United Flight 1832 (a 737-8) from Cancun to Houston had a single engine shutdown on the way and had to divert to New Orleans.
One of the best parts of everyone carrying a camera in their pocket is you can get high-resolution images of incidents like these as a matter of course.
I worked at a Large Internet Infrastructure Company for a long time, and saw software development practices that made my hair curl. All I could think was, "Gee, I'm glad we're not working on aviation software!"
Seriously, though: software "engineering" could actually earn the name, if we had rigorous professional standards, regulatory oversight, and product liability.
Simon (the founder & proprietor of The Aviation Herald) is an incredible force for good in the world. His work on that site, for well over a decade now, is legendary.
I like how people are just standing next to pieces of plane and playing soccer in the background, going like just another day with pieces of plane falling out of sky [0]
Better than that they move the pieces. Finding the pieces in their exact location + weather pattern can give important clues as to the reason why this happened in the first place.
No doubt this was a happy ending, but modern airplanes like the 777 are perfectly capable of flying, even climbing with one engine. So, while it seems very heroic on the part of the pilot, it is pretty ordinary and non news.
What I do think is a happy outcome is the debris from the disintegrating engine did not fall on someone and kill/injure them.
0. Why was the engine flaming in the first video? Why didn't the pilots cut fuel to that engine immediately and use the other engine to land?
1. What is the best way to communicate issues to the pilot if you're a passenger and see something the pilot can't see? For example once I was sitting in the back of the aircraft on Airtran and I saw a screw on the jet loosening and almost falling out. I told a flight attendant but they were just kind of "Um hmm okay thanks for letting us know! Would you like any orange juice?"
> 1. What is the best way to communicate issues to the pilot if you're a passenger and see something the pilot can't see?
Flight attendants is the passengers' interface to the whole flight environment. BTW there's seniority rank among the attendants too, chain of command, so to speak.
I would think that your observation was likely being noted, not sure if relayed to the pilots. Juice is the best option, noone needs to have a panic in the cabin.
Did you try to mention that observation again but at the arrival, during the "Thank you, good bye!" time? Sometimes you may even see the captain there.
P.S. Once, my flight was cancelled (all boarded already) because the crew discovered a missing "Exit" sign in the cabin and the mechanics at the airport could not find the exact part for the plane model. Call this an attention to details!
- The Kegworth air disaster - British Midland Flight 92, a Boeing 737-400
- Pilots had an engine issue and shut down the good engine by mistake.
> The pilots throttled back the working right engine instead of the malfunctioning left engine. They had no way of visually checking the engines from the cockpit, and the cabin crew — who did not hear the captain refer to the right hand engine in his cabin address — did not inform them that smoke and flames had been seen from the left engine.
> Several passengers sitting near the rear of the plane noticed smoke and sparks coming from the left engine.
> The pilots mistakenly shut down the functioning engine. They selected full thrust from the malfunctioning one and this increased its fuel supply, causing it to catch fire. Of the 126 people aboard, 47 died and 74 sustained serious injuries.
I have no idea what the best way to communicate would be, but this is an example of an incident where it could have saved lives. It would be good if there was a protocol. (Perhaps requiring the captain's address to mention which engine they believe has the issue).
Not an expert, but: if there had still been fuel supplied to that engine, the fire would have been a lot worse. If you watch the video the fire clearly becomes less intense over time, and the footage of the landing suggests it's out by then. Remember that fuel isn't the only flammable thing there - engines need oil for lubrication, and in combination with whatever residual fuel was in the system and potentially sprayed everywhere, it's not surprising that you'd have enough to burn for a short time.
0. Airliners have fire bottles filled with Halon to extinguish flames, but they're ineffective if the cowling separates from the engine. That's assuming this uncontained failure didn't damage the bottle or wiring to it.
1. Kudos, that's exactly the way to do it. If it was a screw on top of the wing though, it was likely communicated later as one screw coming off a panel isn't a big deal.
This is quite timely, I was just looking at similar incidents yesterday.
It is somewhat similar to a BA A319 flight where the engine covers weren't latched. They immediately ripped off, taking out one of the engines. Similar footage of exposed engine internals. Safely landed after dumping fuel. That one led to a redesign of the latches.
Another very interesting one I found was a prop going through the fuselage of a DC-8 in Edmonton in 2014. A passenger was inches from being killed.
> The aircraft returned to Denver for a safe landing on runway 26 about 23 minutes after departure. The aircraft stopped on the runway for a check by emergency services. Emergency services advised of an active fire within the right hand engine and extinguished the fire a few minutes later.
[+] [-] terramex|5 years ago|reply
https://avherald.com/h?article=4b4e8ca7&opt=0
I would not be surprised if the whole fleet of this type/engine gets grounded for some time.
[+] [-] nradov|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_2708?wprov=s...
[+] [-] pdonis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hazeii|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djmips|5 years ago|reply
2018: United 777 same PW engine (seems very similar but without fire) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_IAKCBTxc&t=10s
2016: KAL 777 same PW engines (aborted takeoff after engine failure) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bHrW_34kAk
All planes had zero casualties.
[+] [-] leesalminen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|5 years ago|reply
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_IAKCBTxc
Animated recreation with audio of this one (UA328):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8
* Via: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/ual-328-u...
[+] [-] guidedlight|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acvny|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thgaway17|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmoy|5 years ago|reply
I am 110% certain that if I saw a plane on fire in the sky, I would not have the presence of mind to remember the term "cloud deck", let alone the rest of those details.
Ground observer: "Good sir, I do say that the cloud deck was quite low so I didn't get a good look, but the engine was mildly louder than usual, and possibly had smoke, but perhaps not, and appeared to be under control the whole time."
Me, probably: "AAAAAAAAAAAAA PLANE ON FIRE IN THE SKY, RUN!!!"
[+] [-] azalemeth|5 years ago|reply
The excellent safety record of aviation originates from a detailed and pedantic paper trail that is written in blood. It's by learning as much as possible from every incident, without fear of censure or blame, that makes the skies safer for everybody.
[+] [-] karlkatzke|5 years ago|reply
I’m not an average bear though. I regularly read and refer to things learned from airlines and other high criticality career fields, and talk about them at conferences. My sister is an airline pilot and I might have been if I wasn’t medically disqualified.
I do participate in government emergency response work and that looks like the type of statement that would come from a trained observer who knows how to express directionality as unambiguously as possible.
[+] [-] perl4ever|5 years ago|reply
I grew up about 5 miles from an airport and for many years I had a recurring dream that I was looking out the window at an airliner that looked odd somehow or other, until I realized with growing horror it was going to crash in the back yard.
I never saw anything like it in real life, nor was it ever a concern for me whether I was in a flight path when deciding where to live, but evidently my subconscious had a "to do" list that included "be prepared for planes dropping out of the sky".
Strangely, I didn't have nightmares ever that I can remember about being on a plane in distress. Even though as I got older I got more anxious about flying.
[+] [-] sn41|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|5 years ago|reply
Today, of course, I'd be watching through my 500mm lens and taking pictures all the while. This was long before I got back into photography, though, and long before you could get a 500mm tele that didn't cost as much as a car. Even so, it was interesting, not frightening - remember that the sky is a long way away, and so are most things that happen there, weather notwithstanding.
Never did find out what actually happened.
[+] [-] avh02|5 years ago|reply
That said, he definitely also got distressed, but mostly remembered to describe.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ2qP4wd4LE
[+] [-] willyt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GekkePrutser|5 years ago|reply
Considering how rare an occurrence is, it's really weird to have both happen on the exact same day.
https://www.airlive.net/breaking-turbine-blades-of-a-boeing-...
By the way I'm surprised that fire keeps going on the B772. I assume the fuel was cut off, especially as the turbine seems to be just spinning in the wind. I'd imagine the remaining fuel would burn off quickly?
This would really be scary being a passenger (especially when you know the wing it's hanging under is full of fuel).
[+] [-] laurent92|5 years ago|reply
In fact, mathematicians were hired during the Battle of England to estimate whether the Germans were aiming for specific buildings (“why is there a cluster of bombs around this church???” or around some secret offices) or just spreading randomly. Verdict: They weren’t aiming, it was random chance that bombs made some clusters onto some buildings. This is what random looks like: No even distribution, sometimes you get a cluster which looks like a series.
[+] [-] almost_usual|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddalex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yread|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rossdavidh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haunter|5 years ago|reply
Video of the flying debris https://twitter.com/jacdecnew/status/1363241028690599938?s=2...
[+] [-] throw0101a|5 years ago|reply
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-zh7Sebr8
* Via: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/ual-328-u...
[+] [-] thiagocsf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mannykannot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waynesonfire|5 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1363245241109782528?ref...
[+] [-] sydney6|5 years ago|reply
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/longtail-aviation/boeing-...
[+] [-] ledauphin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] infodocket|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trimbo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] just_steve_h|5 years ago|reply
Seriously, though: software "engineering" could actually earn the name, if we had rigorous professional standards, regulatory oversight, and product liability.
[+] [-] just_steve_h|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rossjudson|5 years ago|reply
The plane began to "distribute engine parts". The pictures show us just how impressive the distribution was.
[+] [-] soheil|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://avherald.com/img/united_b772_n772ua_denver_210220_3....
[+] [-] jacquesm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subhro|5 years ago|reply
What I do think is a happy outcome is the debris from the disintegrating engine did not fall on someone and kill/injure them.
Source: Pilot.
[+] [-] dheera|5 years ago|reply
0. Why was the engine flaming in the first video? Why didn't the pilots cut fuel to that engine immediately and use the other engine to land?
1. What is the best way to communicate issues to the pilot if you're a passenger and see something the pilot can't see? For example once I was sitting in the back of the aircraft on Airtran and I saw a screw on the jet loosening and almost falling out. I told a flight attendant but they were just kind of "Um hmm okay thanks for letting us know! Would you like any orange juice?"
[+] [-] zoomablemind|5 years ago|reply
Flight attendants is the passengers' interface to the whole flight environment. BTW there's seniority rank among the attendants too, chain of command, so to speak.
I would think that your observation was likely being noted, not sure if relayed to the pilots. Juice is the best option, noone needs to have a panic in the cabin.
Did you try to mention that observation again but at the arrival, during the "Thank you, good bye!" time? Sometimes you may even see the captain there.
P.S. Once, my flight was cancelled (all boarded already) because the crew discovered a missing "Exit" sign in the cabin and the mechanics at the airport could not find the exact part for the plane model. Call this an attention to details!
[+] [-] interestica|5 years ago|reply
- 8 January 1989
- The Kegworth air disaster - British Midland Flight 92, a Boeing 737-400
- Pilots had an engine issue and shut down the good engine by mistake.
> The pilots throttled back the working right engine instead of the malfunctioning left engine. They had no way of visually checking the engines from the cockpit, and the cabin crew — who did not hear the captain refer to the right hand engine in his cabin address — did not inform them that smoke and flames had been seen from the left engine.
> Several passengers sitting near the rear of the plane noticed smoke and sparks coming from the left engine.
> The pilots mistakenly shut down the functioning engine. They selected full thrust from the malfunctioning one and this increased its fuel supply, causing it to catch fire. Of the 126 people aboard, 47 died and 74 sustained serious injuries.
I have no idea what the best way to communicate would be, but this is an example of an incident where it could have saved lives. It would be good if there was a protocol. (Perhaps requiring the captain's address to mention which engine they believe has the issue).
[+] [-] mjg59|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iawix|5 years ago|reply
1. Kudos, that's exactly the way to do it. If it was a screw on top of the wing though, it was likely communicated later as one screw coming off a panel isn't a big deal.
[+] [-] alkonaut|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ficklepickle|5 years ago|reply
It is somewhat similar to a BA A319 flight where the engine covers weren't latched. They immediately ripped off, taking out one of the engines. Similar footage of exposed engine internals. Safely landed after dumping fuel. That one led to a redesign of the latches.
Another very interesting one I found was a prop going through the fuselage of a DC-8 in Edmonton in 2014. A passenger was inches from being killed.
A319: https://avherald.com/h?article=462beb5e
DC-8: https://avherald.com/h?article=47cee08a&opt=0
[+] [-] moltenguardian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbsks|5 years ago|reply
It’s always amazing too me how calm everyone seems in emergency situations like that. It almost seems like a routine flight.
[+] [-] dkdk8283|5 years ago|reply