Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
AA 777 Severe Engine Damage EZE >

AA 777 Severe Engine Damage EZE

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

AA 777 Severe Engine Damage EZE

Old 11-05-2022, 07:28 PM
  #1  
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 38,900
Default AA 777 Severe Engine Damage EZE

Good work, uneventful RTF.

This was a Trent engine, not the previously problematic P&W.


https://avherald.com/h?article=5003630c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aGps5S9QLI
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 11-05-2022, 08:48 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 821
Default

Isn't this what we do? Increase the time between inspections and overhauls until something breaks? We once X-rayed entire fuselages and wings looking for fatigue. But that's expensive and usually they don't fail catastrophicly so we stopped.
tallpilot is offline  
Old 11-05-2022, 10:48 PM
  #3  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,827
Default

No, that's not at all "what we do."

No, we didn't x-ray entire fuselages or wings.

No, we don't keep extending intervals until something breaks.

This is all wild imagination, and ignorance.

Airframe times and engine and component times are adjusted by history and discovery, and intervals may increase or decrease; when intervals are expanded, the increase in cycles, operational time, or calendar limits is done incrementally, with inspections. There is no program which increases intervals on the basis of running it until it breaks.

Your sky-is-falling comment is made on the basis of what justification, in light of the failure on this engine? Which interval was increased until it broke? Or are you simply speaking out of your ass?
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 11-06-2022, 02:51 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 821
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
No, that's not at all "what we do."

No, we didn't x-ray entire fuselages or wings.

No, we don't keep extending intervals until something breaks.

This is all wild imagination, and ignorance.

Airframe times and engine and component times are adjusted by history and discovery, and intervals may increase or decrease; when intervals are expanded, the increase in cycles, operational time, or calendar limits is done incrementally, with inspections. There is no program which increases intervals on the basis of running it until it breaks.

Your sky-is-falling comment is made on the basis of what justification, in light of the failure on this engine? Which interval was increased until it broke? Or are you simply speaking out of your ass?
I didn't think I was being chicken little. I may have oversimplified the process but indeed what we do is incrementally increase intervals based on successful inspections. Since MTBF is fundamentally a statistical measure the longer that window becomes the more likely an outlier sneaks through.

This crew did a fine job and their experience and training saved the day. Time will reveal what happened with the engine but my money is on some type of age/cycle related fatigue. If that is the case what will happen? Via an AD or some other method the inspection interval for the component that failed will be decreased.
tallpilot is offline  
Old 11-06-2022, 03:53 AM
  #5  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,827
Default

Again you don't know that. You're speculating. When a failure occurs, often it may be an unusual event, such as a manufacturing defect, and may require a one-time inspection with no change in interval. It may turn out to be a crack that was part of an existing program and may not require additional inspections in the fleet, or type.

Increasing inspection intervals does not equate to mean time between failures, particularly if the interval is not related to a failure mode. Your commentary assumes that all intervals are associated with failures, or expectation of a failure. Many inspection intervals are checks for function, tolerance checks, etc; they may have to do with wear limits, serviceability, pre-programmed intervals associated with a life-limited component, or any number of other rationale. Increasing the interval between inspections or service assigned to an airframe, engine, component, or appliance does not mean a greater possibility of a failure, even an "outlier." If we leave a pencil on a shelf that's due to be inspected yearly, and don't touch that pencil but find that it can be inspected every two years of sitting on the shelf, we haven't moved any closer to a failure.

Specifically, mean time between failures (MTBF) is NOT the same as inspection interval, service interval, overhaul interval, or any other interval. Some components have no MTBF. Some simply have life limits. Some work on life extension because initial numbers have proven conservative and inspections are unwarranted. If a component exists which does not have a failure, for which an inspection interval is gradually increased over a given period by virtue of ongoing inspections and gathered data. so long as that item does not have a failure, it does not have a mean time between failures; as no failure interval has been established.

When service difficulty reports and other reporting media establish evidence of a crack or wear or other problems, and these problems have commonality, there may be cause for the establishment of one-time inspections, repetitive inspections, component changes or upgrades or replacement, or modifications such as coatings, changes in material, reinforcements, or other actions. Manufacturer service bulletins are often issued, as well as mandatory regulatory actions such as airworthiness directives. These, in turn, may be one-time actions, or may serve to change intervals, establish new inspections, or other actions such as operational limitations.

The suggestion that increasing an inspection interval equates to a greater chance of component failure is a fallacy.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 11-12-2022, 02:48 PM
  #6  
Ignoring; John Burke.
 
hopp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Position: Wandering
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
No, that's not at all "what we do."

No, we didn't x-ray entire fuselages or wings.

No, we don't keep extending intervals until something breaks.

This is all wild imagination, and ignorance.

Airframe times and engine and component times are adjusted by history and discovery, and intervals may increase or decrease; when intervals are expanded, the increase in cycles, operational time, or calendar limits is done incrementally, with inspections. There is no program which increases intervals on the basis of running it until it breaks.

Your sky-is-falling comment is made on the basis of what justification, in light of the failure on this engine? Which interval was increased until it broke? Or are you simply speaking out of your ass?
Failures are considered when designing life cycles, as in the P&W failures. Everyone I know in the industry understands that.
As usual, you are just being needlessly argumentative and pendantic.
hopp is offline  
Old 11-12-2022, 03:23 PM
  #7  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,827
Default

Originally Posted by hopp View Post
Failures are considered when designing life cycles, as in the P&W failures. Everyone I know in the industry understands that.
As usual, you are just being needlessly argumentative and pendantic.
Quite the opposite. I'm being truthful and correct, which is exactly NOT what the poster (not you) did, to whom I responded. READ.

You go ahead and show that increasing inspection intervals increases failures.

Then again, neither you, nor the other guy, know that such speculation and pure guesswork had any part of the incident in discussion.

It's hardly pedantic to note that the posters comments, literally all of them, were false, and to explain why (unless you simply don't understand).

Inspection intervals and life limits are not designed with failure in mind. They are designed to preclude failure. You understand the difference, or need that also be explained to you?
JohnBurke is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KennyG1700
Flight Schools and Training
40
08-01-2019 01:53 AM
OnMyWay
Hangar Talk
6
12-07-2007 12:41 PM
vagabond
Technical
3
09-06-2007 03:51 PM
C152driver
Your Photos and Videos
1
01-30-2007 10:09 PM
HSLD
Your Photos and Videos
6
11-05-2006 04:33 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices