A/C 330

[Garfield1966]

Garfield, for your info, it is a common practice to run an engine up to full power to check for vibration that is out of limits. You also have to run the engine at full power,if possible,to trim balance the FAN assembly. My guess on this one is that there is going to be an airworthiness directive on the hardware that holds the HP turbine to the HP turbine shaft. That one picture they have is a complete HP disc sitting on the ramp and the other picture shows the HP section missing on the engine.

Does anyone know if the LP turbine is still in the engine or did it completely disinegrate and get blown out the back?

What you say sounds perfectly reasonable.

Perhaps I did not explain my self sufficiently. The point I was attempting to make was that if you had an inkling that there was somethignn wrong with the engine that could result in the above failure I would think that you would not run the engine up. Right?

 

[Wretched Wrench]

The point I was attempting to make was that if you had an inkling that there was somethignn wrong with the engine that could result in the above failure I would think that you would not run the engine up. Right?

No. Not Right.

I am not the final expert on this, but it is common to verify slow acceleration complaints with an engine run. The mech at the throttle was one of the Good Guys. The supe on duty was also one of the Good Guys. I would never second guess either one of them.

 

[700UW]

Looks almost exactly like the US 767 that burnt up in PHL, except they found our disc in the water nearby the airport.

 

[Garfield1966]

Lets try this again.

I am not second guessing. I am not questioning their intelligence or ability. I am saying that I think the ‘discovery’ of this failure was luck rather than skill. What I am suggesting is that the mechanic who was doing the run up did not suspect that his actions would end with the engine failure. Had he been suspicious that an engine failure would be the result of his actions I am assuming that he would not have made the same choice.

Ken seemed to have implied that the ‘discovery’ of this problem was the result of ‘professionalism’. While I am not questioning the professionalism of the mechanics, I am suggesting that the discovery of the failure was the result of luck rather than a conscious effort to see if we can get the engine to go boom.

 

[700UW]

Is it too hard for you to comprehend, that is the GE and AA's guide on trouble shooting, detect and repair?

The mechanics and the supervisor followed the procedure correctly.

Samething happened at US Airways and the company and the FAA recognized the AMTs for the proper action and in the prevention a crash, because if the engine failure would have happened it flight it would have been a total loss.

Here is the link to the report:

US Airways 767

 

[AMFAMAN]

Is it too hard for you to comprehend, that is the GE and AA's guide on trouble shooting, detect and repair?

The mechanics and the supervisor followed the procedure correctly.

Samething happened at US Airways and the company and the FAA recognized the AMTs for the proper action and in the prevention a crash, because if the engine failure would have happened it flight it would have been a total loss.

Here is the link to the report:

US Airways 767

Thanks for the link. I do wonder what the FAA's response to the NTSB's recommendation below.

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2000/A00_121_124.pdf

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Lets try this again.

I am not second guessing. I am not questioning their intelligence or ability. I am saying that I think the ‘discovery’ of this failure was luck rather than skill. What I am suggesting is that the mechanic who was doing the run up did not suspect that his actions would end with the engine failure. Had he been suspicious that an engine failure would be the result of his actions I am assuming that he would not have made the same choice.

Ken seemed to have implied that the ‘discovery’ of this problem was the result of ‘professionalism’. While I am not questioning the professionalism of the mechanics, I am suggesting that the discovery of the failure was the result of luck rather than a conscious effort to see if we can get the engine to go boom.

There is always luck, or unpredictable occurrences involved in these things. Of course, no one would try to blow up an engine. But everyone knows going in that a suspect engine could let go. But a complaint of slow acceleration requires that the engine be put through a run up and parameters recorded. That is what they were doing. There are no choices involved. Many engine complaints can only be verified or analyzed on run up. It was indeed good luck that it blew up on the trim rack rather than on take off.

However, your questions are good ones, and need to be asked. When I mentioned second-guessing, I was not referring to you as much as I was saying that I trusted those guys' judgment implicitly. Heck, there is nothing wrong with second-guessing, anyway. We all do it here.

 

[Garfield1966]

Is it too hard for you to comprehend, that is the GE and AA's guide on trouble shooting, detect and repair?

The mechanics and the supervisor followed the procedure correctly.

abase/record.php?id=20000922-0&lang=en]US Airways 767 [/url]

No, I understand that perfectly.

What I am saying is that the mechanics did not know that then engine was faulty and was going to suffer a catastrophic failure. If they did, they would not have conducted the test. The ‘discovery’ of the failure was luck. Kind of like looking for your car keys but finding the winning lotto ticket you thought you threw away instead.

Fortunately, no one was hurt in the accident.


Thank you Wretched Wrench. That is all I was trying to point out.

 

[700UW]

No one would know it was faulty, that is why they had to do the run-up.

 

[Garfield1966]

No one would know it was faulty, that is why they had to do the run-up.

That's my point. They followed procedure and it failed on the ground instead of in the air. Luck.

 

[700UW]

No.

Proper procedure and troubleshooting.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

(Sorry, duplicated info.)

 

[Nor'Easta]

I am glad nobody was hurt. Was this one of the 767's that had our resident furry friends on it?

I wonder what the NWA Resident SCAB, PTO will say? I know what he would have done...deferred it.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

...Looks like the professional AA mechanics found the problem before it could cause an inflight problem...

They didn't find the problem they simply proved that there was a problem.

"BOOM!!!" "HEY!!! We found the problem!"

Good job though guys but next time lets not destroy the aircraft while we are looking for the "problem".

Also I would like to add that running an engine at full power to find oil consumption problems is ludicrous. Either the oil is leaking, which idle provides more than enough pressure to locate it. Or the oil is being consumed internally which running the engine at high power settings is going to do nothing to help you determine "where the oil is going."

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

They didn't find the problem they simply proved that there was a problem.

"BOOM!!!" "HEY!!! We found the problem!"

Good job though guys but next time lets not destroy the aircraft while we are looking for the "problem".

Also I would like to add that running an engine at full power to find oil consumption problems is ludicrous. Either the oil is leaking, which idle provides more than enough pressure to locate it. Or the oil is being consumed internally which running the engine at high power settings is going to do nothing to help you determine "where the oil is going."

Yep, NWA would have pencil whipped it.