767 engine fire/damage at LAX

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Fellow AA/AMT's, plz "refresh" my memory as to what power plants are on the following AA "birds"

S-80's
737's
A-300's

Thanx

NH/BB's

 

[Garfield1966]

I have another question. I probably do not want to know the answer but I have to ask.

The power level the engine was running at when it tore it's self to shreds, is that a power level that is attained durring regular flight or is it balls to the wall power that in most cases does not happen in regular flight?

Thanks

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I have another question. I probably do not want to know the answer but I have to ask.

The power level the engine was running at when it tore it's self to shreds, is that a power level that is attained durring regular flight?

Yes, takeoff power.

or is it balls to the wall power that in most cases does not happen in regular flight?

Nope.

 

[Hopeful]

Fellow AA/AMT's, plz "refresh" my memory as to what power plants are on the following AA "birds"

S-80's
737's
A-300's

Thanx

NH/BB's

NH/BB's, How are you buddy?

The MD80 has the JT8D-217 (pratt and whitney)
The 737 has the CFM56 (Snecma and General Electric joint venture)

The A300 has the GE CF6-80C2 motors.

 

[eolesen]

MrMarky, there's a slight difference between CF-6 types:

-200's are all CF6-80A
-300's are all CF6-80C2B6
A300's are all CF6-80C2A5

I'll leave it to someone who knows powerplants better than I do, but all of the disk failures seem to be with the -80A engines more than with the -80C and its variants.

 

[Garfield1966]

Wretched,

If I am understanding you correctly , had the run up test not been done, the next time that plane took off there would have been a good likely hood that the engine would haveexploded and the plane could have creashed?

I think I am going to be ill. Thank god for a little blind luck every now and then.

 

[CSAR GYRENE]

If this had been a NWA aircraft, we would be reading about a NWA airliner crashing because NWA scabs didn't test a questionable engine on the ground and then pencil whipped the engine as ok for flight.

Kiddy litter

 

[MrMarky]

MrMarky, there's a slight difference between CF-6 types:

-200's are all CF6-80A
-300's are all CF6-80C2B6
A300's are all CF6-80C2A5

I'll leave it to someone who knows powerplants better than I do, but all of the disk failures seem to be with the -80A engines more than with the -80C and its variants.

Hey Former Mod -- (I think I know who you are),

Good to hear from you.
Thanks for the info. I'm not an expert on engines either, but I believe these numerical suffixes have mostly to do with minor mods and thrust ratings, not major design differences. The fans/turbines should be the same or of very similar design.

Also, you are saying the engine in question is a -80A, indicating that this was a 767-200. But in a previous post I thought I saw where you ID'd this aircraft as a -300. Which is it?

Thanks for your info -- very helpful. I always fly AA and love the 767 -- I do a lot of transcons (AA is the ONLY airline flying widebodies on transcons these days!!) and though I'm not a nervous nelly, it would be reassuring to know the engines on my AC have been inspected for this fatigue and are in good shape.

Also interesting to note that one of the earlier posts or maybe it was a link to a story -- not sure, said the AC went to maintenance because the arriving crew reported some problem. But it very pointedly said the crew report was NOT engine related -- yeah right. If it wasn't an engine problem they were checking then why would they be doing a runup?

Finally, I have to agree with everybody who says this is all TWA's fault. No question about it! However, TWA was a died in the wool Pratt and Whitney airline. The only GE powered jet TWA ever flew was the Convair 880 which only came with GE engines -- now I'm doing this out of memory (which shows you how much useless crap is stored in my memory banks) but I wanna say the engines on the CV880 were CJ805-23. How's that for retaining useless information all these years in what's left of the brain? Oh...and the CV990's (think AA) were CJ805-23B's.

Take care,

Marky

 

[FWAAA]

Wretched,

If I am understanding you correctly , had the run up test not been done, the next time that plane took off there would have been a good likely hood that the engine would haveexploded and the plane could have creashed?

I think I am going to be ill. Thank god for a little blind luck every now and then.

Blind luck nothin' - this was professional maintenance at its best.

As you correctly note, the only time during routine flight that engines see full thrust is at takeoff. During the flight from JFK to LAX, the pilots noted something amiss and wrote it up. The mechanics performed a full runup and "BAM" went the compressor. No luck, simply good maintenance procedures by professionals.

If this had been a NW airplane, maintained by SCABs, then luck would be an accurate way to describe the discovery of metal fatigue and/or cracks in the parts. B)

 

[AMFAMAN]

Wretched,

If I am understanding you correctly , had the run up test not been done, the next time that plane took off there would have been a good likely hood that the engine would haveexploded and the plane could have creashed?

I think I am going to be ill. Thank god for a little blind luck every now and then.

It's called troubleshooting. First step is to run the engine or pencilwhip it NWA style. How do you call that blind luck? Luck would be pencilwhipping it and actually making it back on the ground.

I guess it's blind luck everytime you don't get struck by lightning in a thunderstorm?

 

[IORFA]

Marky,

Yes it is a 200, NOT a 300. Transcons only.

 

[eolesen]

luck would be an accurate way to describe the discovery of metal fatigue and/or cracks in the parts.

All kidding about NWA aside, having the engine come apart during a runup is not how I would expect metal fatigue and cracks to be detected...

Would the cracks be viewable with a borescope, or is it more likely that the cracking would have only been obvious during a teardown?

If its the latter, then it really does boil down to being a matter of luck that it came apart at that exact moment in time.

 

[MCI transplant]

All kidding about NWA aside, having the engine come apart during a runup is not how I would expect metal fatigue and cracks to be detected...

Would the cracks be viewable with a borescope, or is it more likely that the cracking would have only been obvious during a teardown?

If its the latter, then it really does boil down to being a matter of luck that it came apart at that exact moment in time.

<_< ------ Luck my backside! That turbine wheel should have been N.D.T.ed before it went back into that engine! A good ultra sonic inspection would have picked up any imperfections in the composition of that wheel! Just curious! Who overhauled that engine? And how much time was on the engine at the time of failure? These are two questions I'm sure someone a little more important than myself will be asking!

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

<_< ------ Luck my backside! That turbine wheel should have been N.D.T.ed before it went back into that engine! A good ultra sonic inspection would have picked up any imperfections in the composition of that wheel! Just curious! Who overhauled that engine? And how much time was on the engine at the time of failure? These are two questions I'm sure someone a little more important than myself will be asking!

You can NDT a part with ultra-sound,Magna-flux,X-rays,and Zyglo all you want and still have a part crack. It is very possible that the disk was not cracked when it was put into the engine at overhaul. F.O.D. could have started a crack to form or the disk could have been weakened by a previous overtemp event(Hot start or Overboost on takeoff).
There many reasons why metal fatigues in service.

 

[CaptianBoomer]

As I remember, the U 767 that had the uncontained failure in PHL was a total writeoff......

Further, the disk that failed was dropped during the overhaul process. It was inspected and put into service. Same result. The disk blew off the cowling, rendering the fire suppression system useless. The pressure vessel of the aircraft was punctured, as well as the fuel cell. The aircraft was written off because Boeing engineers couldn't guarantee that the wing structure had not been altered by the heat of the fire. Another wing was available, but to put it on was not cost effective.

U was very lucky. It looks like AA was too.

Boomer