Air Canada Boeing plane bursts into flames seconds after taking off

[Caribbeans]

Source: MSN

This is the terrifying moment an Air Canada Boeing plane bursts into flames seconds after take-off.

Video footage shows the aircraft gaining altitude before a light flashes from the right engine and the tail of the plane becomes engulfed in flames - the result of a small explosion.

The frightening ordeal took place thirty minutes after departure as the plane was leaving Toronto Pearson Airport Wednesday night en route to Paris, France.

Witnesses on the ground were horrified with one of them heard saying, 'Holy crap! It's got an engine fire!,' The Sun reported.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/air-canada-boeing-plane-bursts-into-flames-seconds-after-taking-off/ar-BB1nPuYA

---

[republianmushroom]

1. From link, Revealed: 300 Boeing Planes have potentially explosive flaw

[paleotn]

2. Boeing has its problem but they don't make engines.

GE, Pratt and Roll Royce do make engines. When you understand the physics and stresses involved in even modern high bypass turbofans you'd be amazed they don't all burst into flames once throttled up. It's unfortunate but anything made by humans will fail eventually. And then there's FOD. Foreign object destruction. A simple bolt or nut dropped on the runway by a prior flight (it happens) can get ingested into an engine causing catastrophic destruction. Sucks but that's the world we live in. Ever wonder why crews on aircraft carries walk the deck in line on regular intervals? FOD.

[IronLionZion]

3. sucks, literally

[Warpy]

8. Right, it just took a relatively small piece of metal

from a plane that took off earlier to explode a tire and cause a catastrophic fire in the Concorde. It was horrific enough that it basically killed the service.

[IronLionZion]

4. How Jet Engines Work

If anyone else is curious

[usonian]

5. More for aviation deectives.

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2024, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

The 777-300ER uses one of three engine manufacturers.
I can't figure which one, even at Air Canada's website.
See which aircraft engine plant is open late Friday and over the weekend!

From the MSN article:
Emphasis mine.

According to Global News, this was the second incident that took place at Toronto Pearson Airport shortly after take-off in the last two weeks.

On May 27, a flight leaving Toronto heading to Delhi, India encountered an engine issue that forced the plane to reroute.

The Boeing 777-300ER has been with the airline since March 2008, according to Media Drum World.

Air Canada has 19 of those aircraft, all of which are in active service.

Could be FOD? (foreign object damage)


https://planenerd.com/engines-for-boeing-777/
The Engines for Boeing 777: A Closer Look ( date? I can't see one, even with extensions turned off)
The popular Boeing 777 is a revolutionary aircraft. Here are the three engines that powered its success.

The Triple Seven was the first commercial aircraft that was designed entirely via a computer. Guiding its takeoff to instant airline popularity were three powerful engines for the Boeing 777: the General Electric GE90, the Rolls-Royce Trent 800, and the Pratt & Whitney PW4000.
...

General Electric developed their GE90 engine specifically for the Boeing 777, and it is the most powerful airline engine in the world. Its advanced composite fan blade technology made it a pioneer when introduced into service in 1995.

The most popular 777 engine, however, is the Rolls-Royce Trent 800. It has secured orders for 40% of the Boeing 777 market. This tremendous popularity of the Trent 800 is partly due to its low weight. Rolls-Royce says a Trent 800-powered Boeing 777 is 8.000 (3.628,7 kg) lighter than one with the GE90.

The Pratt & Whitney PW4000 is older but still contemporary with the GE90 and Trent 800. Pratt & Whitney has steadily increased the thrust since its introduction on the Boeing 777 in 1995. The low emission and noise levels have complimented the excellent reliability that matches the GE90 and Trent 800.

More from Wikipedia (much more)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

Boeing hints that the GE engine may be the one, though others say that the Rolls is popular.

https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Boeing-777-300ER-Engine-Nacelle-Above-Clouds-2F3XC5LXR3N.html

GE Aircraft Engine's GE90-115B engine powers the 777-300ER. Each engine produces 115,000 pounds of thrust -- nearly a quarter of a million pounds of total thrust for the airplane. By comparison, the original 777 had 75,000 pounds of thrust per engine. GE90-115B engines have been recognized as the world's most powerful commercial jet engines and currently hold a Guinness World Record for thrust. All three types of engines offered on the 777 have excellent fuel efficiency, allowing the 777 to be as quiet as a 767 even though the 777 engines provide 40 percent more power. Key factors in this performance are new, larger-diameter fans with wide-chord fan blade designs and bypass ratios ranging from 6-to-1 to as high as 9-to-1. This compares to the typical 5-to-1 ratio for the engines of previous twin-aisle jets.

Cautionary Tale
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/24467-faa-issues-emergency-ad-boeing-777-300er-ge-engines

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency airworthiness directive (AD), warning Boeing 777-300ER powered by GE engines of a potentially unsafe condition affecting the power plants. This is the second emergency AD, which follows an uncontained engine fire incident back in October 2019.

The emergency AD, issued by the FAA on January 17, 2020, orders operators to have interstage seal removed from General Electric Company GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B model turbofan engines, listing 16 serial numbers. The AD comes in addition to a previous emergency AD, which listed eight engine serial numbers.

The requirement follows investigative findings into October 2019 event, during which a Boeing Model 777-300ER, powered by GE GE90-115B model turbofan engines, experienced an uncontained high-pressure turbine (HPT) failure. As a result, the aircraft suffered damage and had to abort a takeoff.

Link to the directive is stale.

Disclainer: I worked for a while at G.E. Aircraft Engine Group, on engines that could fit on your dining table. Interestingly, one project was to evaluate a third-party's optical blade tip-clearance sensor.

In researching this post, I found that NASA is evaluating a microwave-based tip clearance sensor.

https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/dashlink/static/media/other/AvSafe_2009_IVHM_Weds_AM_Woike.pdf (PDF 1.1MB)


snip

The capability to make in-situ health measurements on a turbine engine is a need that has been identified by the IVHM community
– High Pressure Turbine (HPT) and High Pressure Compressor (HPC) sections

• Why is it needed?
– No sensor is currently being used in these areas now that can directly monitor blade & disk health
– Currently rely on secondary measurements and scheduled based inspection & maintenance

State-of-the-art for other clearance sensors:
- Optical --- Most accurate but more applicable for use in labs, require complex cooling for high temperature usage
- Eddy Current --- Tend to be limited in frequency response and at temperature ~1000°F (540oC)
- Capacitive --- Competing technology. Seems promising. However commercially available products are somewhat limited in frequency response

Linked in one of the above articles: (probably unrelated)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13444467/Boeing-plane-United-American-Airlines-fatal-fault.html
By MATTHEW PHELAN SENIOR SCIENCE REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 17:30 EDT, 22 May 2024 | UPDATED: 12:38 EDT, 7 June 2024

In this March 2024 airworthiness directive (AD) proposal, the FAA warned Boeing of an 'electrostatic discharge,' or static electricity risk, near the center-wing fuel tanks.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. This is a plan that's been in service since 2008

It’s an engine made by GE.

It’s an engine fire on a plane that’s been flying for over 16 years.

99.9% it’s a maintenance issue.

[Cheezoholic]

7. Why doesn't it say "all emergency procedures and redundancy's both trained and engneered worked and no one was killed"?

Seriously. Shits gonna break. If it's an inherent flaw, hopefully its discovered and will be addressed. I know Boeing has their issues but when something like this happens the blame swatters start swatting immediately. Do people really think no pilot, engineer or agency ever foresaw something like this and put whatever it takes to safely recover whats most important, the cargo? There's more work that goes into aviation safety than any other aspect of aviation and the miles traveled to fatality and injury ratio proves it period. That average even goes back to the days when pilots were doing lines on their checklist cards . That's how freaking safe this industry is. The pilots, design engineers, crews, airport personnel, all of them do an outstanding and usually thankless job. Hat's off to everyone involved in aviation for a job well done.

[Fichefinder]

9. There is tremendous pressure to keep the engines on the wing

Because the maintenance facilities are overwhelmed. Once you take it off wing the amount of paperwork you have to do to put it back on is astronomical. Once it is removed it is usually so beat to shit that they change everything except the data plate.

So they squeeze every possible hour out of it.

Not unusual to have to perform an engine borescope after every 100 or even 50 hours. You take your measurements and an engineer eventually signs a release giving you the cover to fly another 50.
Refuel and repeat.
"Beat to fit and paint to match"

[EX500rider]

10. Looks like a compressor stall followed by surging

Not really a "engine fire" or a "small explosion" or "the tail of the plane becomes engulfed in flames"

That's like saying "your car is on fire" when it backfired out the carburetor

[SpankMe]

11. This is true

Compressor stalls with flow interruption that allowed not-yet-combusted gasses to briefly ignite near the exit nozzle. "Engine fire" is misleading. There was no reporting that the firex was activated.

Another poster above correctly mentions that the engines are not built by Boeing and thus have nothing to do with Boeing's recent issues.

Suckish reporting and over the top reactions and assumptions. This kind of thing happens more often than is reported, and pilots and airlines have procedures for handling it that always leads to a safe landing and re-booking of passengers.

Somebody please unplug the media. Between shit like this and all the pro-Trump nonsense by the so-called MSM, I'm fed up.

[orangecrush]

15. Agreed 100%

[crickets]

12. The plane landed safely and no one was hurt, thank goodness.

Everyone on the plane was surely frightened out of their wits, but sitting in a seat over the wing must have been absolutely terrifying. Good on the pilot for getting back to the ground safely.

[orangecrush]

13. Sabotage?

[dflprincess]

14. Perhaps by the bean counters. Nt

[Angleae]

16. More likely to be stupidity.

[Angleae]

17. This thread is weird.

It mentions "Boeing" in the thread title. Where are all the "I hate Boeing people?"