Jump to content

United flight 328 - Denver to Honolulu


Kalamazoo Jambo

Recommended Posts

Dagger Is Back
9 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Here’s a part of it...

 

2AD0BAC7-4AD7-4DBB-B548-F0F8D7386B67.jpeg

 

Incredibly the flight landed safely.


Holy @@@@.

 

Hope everyone in the air and on ground are OK.

 

Must admit as I get older and closer to death the less I want to fly.  It quite sure I can make sense of that mind you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WoolfordsHearts
6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

You just know those hicks in the photie will tie a rope to it,hang it from the tree and make a tarzy.🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Салатные палочки
25 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Here’s a part of it...

 

2AD0BAC7-4AD7-4DBB-B548-F0F8D7386B67.jpeg

 

Incredibly the flight landed safely.

 

:wow:

 

Always amazes me that these things can land in a residential area but don't hit a house or a car. Just lands in a front garden. 

 

It is great that the plane landed safely. Thankfully in this day and age that's possible and a major disaster can be avoided by the design of the plane and how it can function after a major structural failure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
11 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

No verification that this is real but it appears to be...

 

 

 

I'd be filling my drawers if I looked out a window and seen that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo
1 minute ago, Barack said:

Fell all that distance & didn't so much as make a dent in the ground?🤨


Congratulations on starting another right wing conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
1 minute ago, Barack said:

Fell all that distance & didn't so much as make a dent in the ground?🤨

 

I'm guessing aluminium which is kinda light. Not be the first time I've been wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sawdust Caesar
9 minutes ago, Barack said:

Fell all that distance & didn't so much as make a dent in the ground?🤨

It may have hit one of those trees first which may have taken most of the brunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

No verification that this is real but it appears to be...

 

 

 

 

:wow: 

 

Imagine looking out your passenger seat window to that sight. Holy smokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
11 minutes ago, Barack said:

Ah. Fair.

 

As FinBarr's said. That's more than likely aluminium. But it won't have floated down like paper from a few thousand feet, would it? Will still weigh a decent amount. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

You certainly don't want to get hit by it Barack but if it hit a water starved lawn ie, dry as feck, would it mark/dent it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember an Airbus A380 dumped a fair bit of engine over the sea near Singapore and they were taken out of service. Not long after I was flying to Australia on a Qantas flight and it was an A380 that the pilot took great pleasure in telling us was their first flight in one since they were withdrawn. Not what you want to hear just before you do an first leg all the way to Singapore. Glad it did though 100% quieter and more comfortable than a 747. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Barack said:

Fell all that distance & didn't so much as make a dent in the ground?🤨

distance is sort of irrelevant as it would have hit terminal velocity after a couple of hundred meters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
37 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

I'd be filling my drawers if I looked out a window and seen that.

 

Wouldn't be on a plane ever again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
2 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

distance is sort of irrelevant as it would have hit terminal velocity after a couple of hundred meters

 

Show your working.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

I'd be filling my drawers if I looked out a window and seen that.

I can safely say my bowels would be vented. Not a ****ing chance I'd fly again of that happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
1 minute ago, Norm said:

I can safely say my bowels would be vented. Not a ****ing chance I'd fly again of that happened. 

Which begs the question, how are you getting back to the UK from Denver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

Which begs the question, how are you getting back to the UK from Denver?

In that instance, it'd have to be a BA Barracus style milk shake and hope to **** I don't wake up for 10 hours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
2 minutes ago, Norm said:

In that instance, it'd have to be a BA Barracus style milk shake and hope to **** I don't wake up for 10 hours. 

 

I'd go for the slow boat and get minced at the bar for a few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.T.F.Robertson
4 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:


Congratulations on starting another right wing conspiracy theory.

 

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Barack said:

Fell all that distance & didn't so much as make a dent in the ground?🤨

 

16 hours ago, Sawdust Caesar said:

It may have hit one of those trees first which may have taken most of the brunt.

 

It hit a car first then bounced into the front yard.  The car was wrecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cade said:

Boeing are not having the best of times.

 

The airframe is Boeing, but the engine was made by Pratt and Whitney.  It was an engine problem.  The airline buying the plane chooses the engines it wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the book airframe by Michael Creighton.....   tells you all about how these work out - everyone blames plane when it's the engine.    

 

Also google/wiki speedbird jarkarta ba for proper story about keeping calm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 

Edited by cannonfoda
Spelling errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
6 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The airframe is Boeing, but the engine was made by Pratt and Whitney.  It was an engine problem.  The airline buying the plane chooses the engines it wants.

 

Are all engines a standard size? Suppose they must be if you get to pick yer own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Are all engines a standard size? Suppose they must be if you get to pick yer own.

 

They come in different sizes, depending on the size of the airframe.  The three major suppliers of jet engines are Rolls Royce, GE, and Pratt and Whitney. Airlines tend to stick with one manufacturer as it makes maintenance easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

They come in different sizes, depending on the size of the airframe.  The three major suppliers of jet engines are Rolls Royce, GE, and Pratt and Whitney. Airlines tend to stick with one manufacturer as it makes maintenance easier.

Thanks Ron

1 hour ago, Barack said:

Stick a couple of Airbus A380 engine's on a Airbus A320's airframe and see what happens. :lol:

 

Or...😬

 

 

 

 

 

I was only  asking mate as I've got no bloody idea, interesting what you and Maple said though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cannonfoda said:

Read the book airframe by Michael Creighton.....   tells you all about how these work out - everyone blames plane when it's the engine.    

 

Also google/wiki speedbird jarkarta ba for proper story about keeping calm. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 

One of my favourite reads. Bloody brilliant book. 

 

This will be spinned by the usual suspects in the media as how flying is dangerous, a few posters have already said they would never fly again if they saw this.

 

Reactionary nonsense. You are statistically 1000s of times more likely to die driving to the airport than on the plane itself.

 

The real story should be how an engine failed that badly, yet the pilots brought it back safe with no injuries. But that doesn't sell stories does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK has temporarily banned all Boeing 777 with Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines from entering UK airspace, this follows a second incident over the week-end when another 777 had an engine failure & break-up over the Netherlands.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

The UK has temporarily banned all Boeing 777 with Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines from entering UK airspace, this follows a second incident over the week-end when another 777 had an engine failure & break-up over the Netherlands.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-temporarily-bans-boeing-b777s-with-certain-engine-after-two-incidents-12225832

 

The aircraft in The  Netherlands (just a few kms up the road from me) was a Boeing 747 with a different type of P&W engine. Two people were slightly injured, a child who picked up a bit of hot blade and an elderly woman who was hit by a bit of debris. It could have been a lot worse as the pictures show.

20210221_102440.jpg

20210221_102433.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard a little news clip on radio. The news reader was saying that the manufacturers of the engine built in as a safeguard the exact response that occurred in case of such a malfunction of the engine. Its somewhat worrying for me for the safety of others, I no longer travel, to know that there is a plan to mitigate to some extent a failure. Would it not be more precise not to manufacture engines with a probable/possible source of failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gulpener said:

 

The aircraft in The  Netherlands (just a few kms up the road from me) was a Boeing 747 with a different type of P&W engine. Two people were slightly injured, a child who picked up a bit of hot blade and an elderly woman who was hit by a bit of debris. It could have been a lot worse as the pictures show.

20210221_102440.jpg

20210221_102433.jpg

 

I was sure it was a 777, maybe getting mixed up with the one in Japan, again a P&W engine, sure the Japanese have banned them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing video of the engine fire on the Denver 777, it was extremely fortunate that the plane got safely back on the ground.  The integrity of the wing could easily have been compromised, or the fuel tanks in the wing could have caught fire.  Either of those would have resulted in a disaster.

 

This incident is a huge problem for P&W.  If there is a flaw in the design or manufacture of the engine fan blades it will be difficult to fix, and no-one will want to fly in planes with those engines while it is unresolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sharpie said:

Just heard a little news clip on radio. The news reader was saying that the manufacturers of the engine built in as a safeguard the exact response that occurred in case of such a malfunction of the engine. Its somewhat worrying for me for the safety of others, I no longer travel, to know that there is a plan to mitigate to some extent a failure. Would it not be more precise not to manufacture engines with a probable/possible source of failure.

They do.  These engines go through a million tests and run for 10000s of hours with no faults.   Try that with a car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

After seeing video of the engine fire on the Denver 777, it was extremely fortunate that the plane got safely back on the ground.  The integrity of the wing could easily have been compromised, or the fuel tanks in the wing could have caught fire.  Either of those would have resulted in a disaster.

 

This incident is a huge problem for P&W.  If there is a flaw in the design or manufacture of the engine fan blades it will be difficult to fix, and no-one will want to fly in planes with those engines while it is unresolved.

Not a new engine - these aircraft all use them.   

Major applications Airbus A300-600/A310
Airbus A330
Boeing 747-400
Boeing 767/KC-46
Boeing 777
McDonnell Douglas MD-11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cannonfoda said:

They do.  These engines go through a million tests and run for 10000s of hours with no faults.   Try that with a car. 

 The only time my car leaves the ground is when the auto repair shop puts it on the lift.   So with all that testing how does what happened happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...