The AvHerald reports on a scary-looking incident that occurred on a March 1st flight in Kyrgyzstan:
A Tez Jet Avro RJ-85, registration EX-27005 performing flight TEZ-107 from Bishkek to Batken (Kyrgyzstan) with 96 people on board, was climbing through about FL200 when the outboard left engine (LF507, #1) suffered an uncontained failure. The crew shut the engine down and returned to Bishkek for a safe landing on runway 08 about 35 minutes after departure.
While an engine failure and shut down as such doesn’t sound that bad, what makes this situation terrifying is that it was uncontained, so the engine came apart, and almost appears to be dangling. Fortunately the plane has four engines, so it doesn’t need all of them to fly. Perhaps the bigger risk was what could happen if part of the engine fell off, and possibly hit another part of the plane.
Regardless of how much risk passengers were actually in, video footage from the incident shows people in the cabin crying, so clearly this was a horrifying incident.
Here’s a video from the flight, per LiveLeak:
(Tip of the hat to Points, Miles & Martinis)
Women was allegedly nearly sucked out and held in by other passengers after the window blew out.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/04/17/southwest-airlines-plane-emergency-landing-philadelphia-airport/
Aircraft engines aren't having a good run lately.
@docntx except it wasn't funny. At all. LOL
Send parts. And vowels.
While we design engines to sustain such failure, they are not intended to continue extended operation due to the possibility of greater damage to control surfaces, aerodynamic control, increase in drag and increased cockpit workload. Glad that no unexpected consequences of the failure was observed.
LOL!
Love the way Hillary lovers go to great lengths to silence any hint of humor, wrapping themselves in the inescapable cloak of self righteousness.
Either that, or they point out how stupid the rest of the world is by having these tedious semantic discussions about what exactly the nature of the failure might be.
Spare us from your self important criticism.
Thank you for sharing information, Lucky.
Guess for...
LOL!
Love the way Hillary lovers go to great lengths to silence any hint of humor, wrapping themselves in the inescapable cloak of self righteousness.
Either that, or they point out how stupid the rest of the world is by having these tedious semantic discussions about what exactly the nature of the failure might be.
Spare us from your self important criticism.
Thank you for sharing information, Lucky.
Guess for some of us life is about being grateful for others sharing what they know and learn something new every day.
Sorry Nancy drew
Shithole next time
I promise
Xx
@Number 1. Thank you for that offensive and totally unnecessary comment. Why don't you just say "shithole country" and be done with it? Kyrgyzstan is a fascinating and culturally rich, but still very much developing, country. I'm sure they're working assiduously as we speak to one day meet your standards.
Looks scary but that Jumbolino has another 3 engines, compared to the 777-200 from UNITED (flying overwater for hours!!!) with only 1 engine left when it lost also parts of the covers and some fans of engine 2 got damaged even worse on Feb13th of this year, . . . https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=206147 THAT is scary i'd say. That plane is "only" 22 years old compared to the older RJ-85 in Kyrgyzstan.
What would you expect it is crapistan!
„An uncontained failure [...] doesn‘t sound that bad.“ – I disagree. The engine is designed and tested to prevent any uncontained failures at all times. Any shrapnels flying around contain a lot (!) of kinetic energy after detaching from spools revving at two to twenty thousand a minute. You don‘t want them to hit the wings, control surfaces or, potentially worst, fuselage. In comparison, an engine that just detaches more or less intact from the...
„An uncontained failure [...] doesn‘t sound that bad.“ – I disagree. The engine is designed and tested to prevent any uncontained failures at all times. Any shrapnels flying around contain a lot (!) of kinetic energy after detaching from spools revving at two to twenty thousand a minute. You don‘t want them to hit the wings, control surfaces or, potentially worst, fuselage. In comparison, an engine that just detaches more or less intact from the wing is a much lesser problem. Of course, it is a contained failure that you want to happen, if at all, where parts exist the still-attached engine only through its nozzle.
"An uncontained failure and the engine being shut down doesn’t sound that bad"
Your analysis is backwards, you should know better. The engines are designed to contain failures, so each and every uncontained engine failure is taken very seriously, as they are by definition an "explosive" event. However, the inoperative engine dangling causes additional drag but in itself is probably not very dangerous. In this case Its hard to see how anything falling off the...
"An uncontained failure and the engine being shut down doesn’t sound that bad"
Your analysis is backwards, you should know better. The engines are designed to contain failures, so each and every uncontained engine failure is taken very seriously, as they are by definition an "explosive" event. However, the inoperative engine dangling causes additional drag but in itself is probably not very dangerous. In this case Its hard to see how anything falling off the outboard (and rearmost) engine could impact the fuselage or be ingested, post-event. If the drag forces were substantial enough to damage the wing, the engine, strut and pylon are actually designed to separate from the wing (fall off) before wing damage can occur.
got 3 more engines
I would agree -- that does indeed appear to be an uncontained engine failure. A lot scarier looking than it actually is, but certainly unnerving.
airplane (n) - many parts flying in close formation.