Simviation Forums

Hard to believe all 165 people aboard escaped with their lives.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 66,00.html


Matt

Photos are oddly reminiscent of Manchester... A lucky escape.

Saw that on the news last night. Impressive fire!

Glad everyone made it all right...


It is so sad that this line always ends anything like this these days:

"Investigating police said terrorism was not suspected." :-/

Do you like your 738 done rare, medium, or well done?

Good to hear everyone is ok.    Except for the 738  :'(

Didnt they say the plane had a fuel leak or maybe an oil leak, Glad the people made it out  8-)

Good to hear everyone is ok.    Except for the 738  :'(

It's alright, planes are replaceable, people are not

One of my professors really got the message across.  I'm studying to be an aerospace engineer (in other words, to design airplanes).  The professor of my Intro to Aerospace course told us that as an aerospace engineer we have a lot of pressure because when we make a mistake, people die.

Good to hear everyone is ok.    Except for the 738  :'(

It's alright, planes are replaceable, people are not

One of my professors really got the message across.  I'm studying to be an aerospace engineer (in other words, to design airplanes).  The professor of my Intro to Aerospace course told us that as an aerospace engineer we have a lot of pressure because when we make a mistake, people die.

Not just aerospace engineers Jake. Each time an aircraft is in maintenance and I sign it off, in the back of my mind is that my signature could send me to jail if I have screwed up in any way.

As for this accident, knowing the CFM 56 as I do, I would say highly unlikely (though not improbable) that it would be an oil leak. A fire that intense and that size and speed, fuel is more like it. The question now is about what broke to let that amount out. The aircraft is reported to have skidded to a halt. Now when we have videos of 737's landing with one main wheel still locked up and then sliding down the runway on the engine nacelle and nothing happens, I think that just skidding to a halt and catching fire is a very incomplete story. I would go with the lucky it did skid to a halt because something was already broken and it could have burnt in the air, unless during the skid the aircraft  hit something substantial and ripped open a fuel line or tank.

Matt

[quote][quote]Good to hear everyone is ok.

Good to hear everyone is ok.    Except for the 738  :'(

It's alright, planes are replaceable, people are not

Amen.



Ex-pat, could it have possible been that the engine ingested something small in air that started to burn, leading to the ignition of the rest of the engine?

Well the only thing it it likely to ingest in the air, is it's self or a bird. Now bearing in mind last Sunday I was removing what was left of a Mouse Buzzard out of one of our engines, it had exited through the fan bypass and entered the booster (core engine), there was not a scratch on the engine. It was back in the air 2 hour later. Saying that about two weeks previously we had an A320 that took a mid sized bird on rotation and as it turned out after the emergency landing due to high vibration, had bent three fan blades. Now the CFM 56 in the Air Bus and the CFM56 in the 737 are the same in name only. They bear very little resemblance to each other, just the core engine (HP comp and hot parts). The 56 on the 737 is a very sturdy engine. There are pictures on the net of this engine ingesting a wide range of things from nuts and bolts on the ramp to a very unlucky Chinese mechanic (Trust me please, you do not want to even find these pictures by accident let alone go looking for them) and this engine has never caught fire. However as I said, it is an incomplete story and there is always the possibility to beat the odds. Hope that answers it for you.

Matt

It seems the aircraft had fuel pourning out of the right engine while it was taxiing to its assigned parking space. Ground personell noticed fuel running out of the same area as the aircraft was parking. Passengers also noticed a large black cloud of smoke just before the fire started.

Airport officials retraced the route the aircraft took while taxiing but found no evidence of fuel. "It was 30 degrees celsius here at the time the aircraft landed but the ground temerature was much hotter. The fuel may have evaporated" they said.

Now it is being reported the aircaft had just completed a major inspection before the flight and the right engine pylon has a crack that was found after the fire.

It seems the aircraft had fuel pourning out of the right engine while it was taxiing to its assigned parking space. Ground personell noticed fuel running out of the same area as the aircraft was parking. Passengers also noticed a large black cloud of smoke just before the fire started.

Airport officials retraced the route the aircraft took while taxiing but found no evidence of fuel. "It was 30 degrees celsius here at the time the aircraft landed but the ground temerature was much hotter. The fuel may have evaporated" they said.

Now it is being reported the aircaft had just completed a major inspection before the flight and the right engine pylon has a crack that was found after the fire.

A couple of things come to mind here. Firstly, if it had just come out of major.............oops, sorry, ooooooooooooooooops.
If fuel had been leaking out, even on a very hot day, you would have seen staining on concrete and with asphalt, it would have melted the very top layer of it enough to also leave a witness mark. As for the crack, hard to say. Naturally the pylons are checked for cracking when the engine is changed. A major inspection, I would assume it was a "C" check. The engines normally stay on wing for that. Bearing in mind that the engine wieghs in at about 5 tons, with that intense heat, it could have failed on wing during the fire. However, that is right up the street of the accident investigation people of course.
With the amount of fuel that is reported coming out, I would go with a failure in the LP side before or as the fuel reached the engine. Low pressure, but in a huge quantity, but again speculation.

Matt

It now seems they have zeroed in on the cause of the accident.

The US FAA has ordered emergency inspections of wing leading-edge slat tracks on all Boeing Next Generation 737s after investigators discovered a loose bolt had pierced the fuel tank in the China Airlines 737-800 that was destroyed by fire in Japan on 20 August.

The affected part on the aircraft that burned was improperly installed and missing a washer that was to have held the nut in place.

It now seems they have zeroed in on the cause of the accident.

The US FAA has ordered emergency inspections of wing leading-edge slat tracks on all Boeing Next Generation 737s after investigators discovered a loose bolt had pierced the fuel tank in the China Airlines 737-800 that was destroyed by fire in Japan on 20 August.

The affected part on the aircraft that burned was improperly installed and missing a washer that was to have held the nut in place.

You have hit the nail on the head. Last night at work we got an Air Directive or "D" note from Boeing. It is a fleet check that has to be completed in the next 10 days. We had two aircraft at our station last night in the hanger for inspection. It requires about 5 hours per aircraft. The directive covers what you have said but also incorrectly fitted and missing bolts to be replaced in the slat track down stops. It would appear that the slat managed to pass the down stop and pierced the tank. However as during a "C" check, the slats are removed, it would appear to be a maintenance error that resulted in a short term result as apposed to long term by chaffing for example). However, belt and braces time as the end result was rather catastrophic.

Matt