UAL flight 328

AgentJayZ

70K بازدید12

    Observations of the video available showing the engine failure and fire aboard United Airlines flight 328 on Feb 20 2021.
    From the point of view of an engine guy.
    Here is a link to P&W's page about this engine:
    prattwhitney.com/products-and-services/products/commercial-engines/pw4000-112
    Here's an operating manual for the P&W4000 series engines for pilots:
    www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/a310/a310pw4000seriesoperation.pdf
    The Turbofan design engineer referred to in the video is my friend grahamj9101
    When the final NTSB report is released, we will see how close or how far off the mark I really am.

    تاریخ انتشار پیش 13 روز

    نظر

    1. Sibirskiy

      So you could say that including the nacelle when referring to "the engine" is a lot like including the hood of your car when referring to its engine.

    2. Zachary Dykstra

      This might be a stupid question but why don’t they use some kind of engine brake to slow or lock the shaft for these types of situations? I know weight would be one reason.

      1. Zachary Dykstra

        @Rob D yes but something like a fan blade coming apart like this issue. I’m just rambling and trying to understand. I get the factor of cost and maintenance. I know some turbo props have a prop brake to keep them from windmilling. Thank you for some input.

      2. Rob D

        @Zachary Dykstra Windmilling is actually what would help restart an engine during flight in the event of a flame out. On a sidenote, some helicopters have a rotor break. 🤷🏻‍♂️

      3. Zachary Dykstra

        @Rob D ok put in to perspective how many cars are on the road with airbag? I’m not trying To argue, but why not in new designed engine add something to prevent the engine from windmilling? Weight wouldn’t be a big issue but I see the side of making is so it can’t be accidentally activated in normal flight.

      4. Rob D

        @Zachary Dykstra Take this into consideration also - how many rockets are there that are in service? Now contrast that rough estimate to how many airliner (not including military or corporate here) jet engines are in service (or ready to be put in service in a short timeframe) today . . . the contrast is striking! The theory and on paper sounds great, but in practical every day use and to be built on every single jet engine that exists, strictly speaking within the airliner world at this moment, it’s astronomical.

      5. Zachary Dykstra

        @Rob D oh I agree but I’m sure there could be a “fail” safe system designed I’m no engineer. But look at our man rocket systems they have an abort system and hope to Never use it but it’s there for that one time you need it. I understand the maintenance I could think of a few ways of doing a system.

    3. James Mason

      And Jay is right again! Not surprising, but:, the following fragment from CNN, the inner quotes being from the FAA's latest: The report said a valve that cuts fuel flow to the engine in case of fire had properly closed and said "there was no evidence of a fuel-fed fire." The report cited damage to the "fuel, oil, and hydraulic lines.

    4. Rob Peters

      You can see a detailed interview with captain Chris Bentham and Juan out now. You have to watch it. Captain Chris Bentham from UAL flight #. 1175.is a true gentleman as Juan. These guys are trained to fly a brick.

    5. Barb Davis

      Nice discussion of of the incident. Good rant. I have never had anything that I knew about be properly reported by the media.

    6. R.Walt61

      One of the blade fragments was found in the underwing attachment fairing where the wing attaches to the body but that wasn't a structural part. Just a fiberglass cover.

    7. Jeff Wads

      This is why IRvision exists.

    8. jason z

      News agencies should start having you help on reporting these incidents from now on!

    9. Lowndes Whatley

      Totally agree on the know-nothing media!! When I have personally witnessed an event and then later saw, heard, or read about it in the media, there were no similarities whatsoever.

    10. JC Baily

      Thanks for your report and as to the media, who believes them anymore?

    11. pops wrench

      KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!

    12. Daniel Michaud

      The media are allways full of sh*t.

    13. cyberbob

      I wonder why some people find it extremely important to distinguish contained from uncontained engine failure. A woman died in Southwest from shrapnel of a contained failure. So it‘s obviously nothing to be proud of.

      1. Sergey Ivanov

        Because it means the difference between thin aluminium pieces and projectiles with enough energy to fly through airplane in any direction flying around. Uncontained failure has potential to bring whole plane down killing everyone onboard. Event like this is unplesant, sure, but far, far less dangerous. In a sense it is not that much different from any inflight shutdown from plane survivability point of view. Fatality on SWA1380 was a sad event, and very unlucky one. But even that was much better than something like united 232...

      2. kb25j

        @AgentJayZ Well, unfortunately, that's actually how all aspects of aviation safety are evaluated. Each human life has a certain dollar value associated to it, and that value is one input in their formulas which also include probabilities, etc... and that's how they determine an appropriate level of safety. Nothing will ever be 100% safe no matter how hard we try, so the next best thing is to simply derive a mathematical formula for guidance on what's acceptable...in their view, anyway. Thank u for the vid, though.

      3. AgentJayZ

        Cyber: Actually, the manufacturers are always trying to make the engines better, so they fail less often. Seeing it as a matter of money, and covering the risk with better insurance is a pure douchebag way of looking at it.

      4. cyberbob

        @AgentJayZ the people who make the engine should invest in quality assurance which keeps their fan blades in place and not in IRvision influencers who try to whitewash them.

      5. AgentJayZ

        As explained before... the people who make the aircraft and the people who make the engine have a very large interest in whether or not their product is to blame for the damages.

    14. EATSLEEPJD

      Although technically a contained failure (Fan blades are contained) it doesn't look good the inlet cowl, fan cowl and T/R just ripped off. The inlet cowl that came off Southwest plane killed a lady (Even thought it was a contained failure also). They need to investigate more in to the cowls so they can handle and stay on during these type of events. This could really have hurt someone on board or even on the ground.

    15. Richard Reavis

      (2/20/21 Denver->Honolulu) None of the vids I've seen on this yet mention what date this happened, and most not where they were headed from Denver. An extra couple seconds would be appreciated. Thanks!

      1. AgentJayZ

        I don't get it. You answered your own question before you asked it.

    16. Greatdome99

      Well said and mostly accurate. To a news reporter, the whole thing below the wing is an 'engine.' To the real world, the engine (built by P&W and others) is covered in cowling, which is what flew off. I've seen one IRvision video that showed how the bigger fan blade flew FORWARD of the engine inlet flange, slicing the aluminum nose cowl (landed in someone's front yard). That caused a chain reaction that led to loss of the fan cowl and parts of the Thrust Reversers (honeycomb composite, not metal). Furthermore, that blade then sliced open the wing-to-body fairing (non-structural composite), so this just might be an uncontained failure and it could have penetrated the fuselage. You can bet no one at Pratt is sleeping well tonight.

    17. Daniel S

      Maybe there is a comment amongst the 945 preceding comments about who would call PAN, PAN, PAN meaning the vessel is in danger but the passengers aren't. I guess this would be a single seat military aircraft where there are no passengers.

      1. Barb Davis

        Check Captain Joe's channel. He has examples and a good explanation of the two different conditions. irvision.info/home/hojWqaFff7SjqbA/fy-lm-h-y.html (Sorry if you have to copy the link)

    18. Dejezeri

      Jay, With engine damage like that you can't fly theoretically an ETOPS flight. The main reason is that the drag would be much higher than the standard estimates - [performance and fuel consumption would be as a test flight], besides a catastrophic failure has many other unknowns, structural, leaks etc. An ETOPS continuation is based on an engine shutdown only. Now it "should" be able to fly on for several hours on one engine, but you won't be going anywhere far away unless you have no other choice. What is your opinion about evidence suggesting a fan blade part sliced forward thru the leading edge anti-ice ring? ...Edit: I am thinking the source I saw for this damage may not be reliable, so maybe no evidence at all, best to wait for ntsb info. directly.

    19. Chris Szumiloski

      Interesting.

    20. John Melling

      Hmm, theres something weirdly exciting about an engine failure once the plane is safely back on the ground and everybody is safe. Is it just me who loves the investigation and learning what went wrong? I guess i get it from my Grandad who loved his car breaking down so that he could repair it! Im surprised to hear that they will likely repaor this engine. I thought it would of been scrapped Have you ever had any engines in for repair with heavy damage like this Jay, broken blades etc?

    21. MrRexQuando

      Totally agree on the bad coverage on the news! Love your videos. Remember the pilot has "fuse pins" which in theory should have had the engine break free (in theory) before it damaged the structure of the wing. Why not fly to Hawaii 1. You shatter one engine ETOPS be damned you may have the same failure. 2. (biggest reason) you can't maintain cruise altitude with 1 engine spinning and all the drag of the missing nacelle.

    22. greg smith

      Surprised how heavy each blade is.. aren't these hi cycle engines having issues..?

      1. AgentJayZ

        Hmmm, my response to your vagueness is some vagueness of my own: " It certainly appears so, doesn't it?"

    23. robert m

      What’s that old thing behind you I have been working on large aircraft since I was 22 years of age

      1. AgentJayZ

        Orenda 14. Fighter jet engine. Canadair Sabre 6. North American Aviation F86-F, but made in Canada.

    24. Alex Altrichter

      After reading many of the comments I was impressed by the number of professional jet engine technicians on here. If it was uncontained the fuselage would have looked like a strainer.

    25. Mike Hoolihan

      The -300ER and the 200/200ER have “Major” differences and is worth the time to look up! Totally different Engines, Specs, Wings and Landing Gear.

    26. Sheila Walker

      The 'it is unless it isn't' politician approach to the partly pregnant contained or not turbine engine failure. Not wanting to get into the debate-discussion as to what is contained and uncontained. The FAA skirts this issue that demonstrates quite admirably there are a lot of politicians or would be politicians among their ranks. www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_33-5.pdf Jay's point > The engine casing is the only containment of the engine in the event of a catastrophic engine failure. Technically therefore, if an excursion did not pass through the casing there was no Uncontained Failure - with the possible exception of debris exiting out the back of the engine. UA Flight 328 incident involved debris which penetrated the fuselage directly below and approximately center of the wing and included a section of the wing box fairing. This is regarded as an incidental excursion outside engine design specifications. All the rationalizing and hair splitting aside, Jay is correct. The engine casing performed within design specifications. There was no uncontained excursions. If the engine casing was to extend, say, out beyond the nose and tail of the aircraft the potential for flying debris from a catastrophic failure would be significantly reduced, but not entirely eliminated. Of course such engines would never be attached to an aircraft. And to address another talking point. No, a private citizen may not keep parts that flew off of aircraft. All such parts are considered evidence in an investigation. In the event that the investigation does not lead to criminal charges said individual can petition the court to release debris that was found upon the property of the individual. Best of luck there since the court would be keeping in mind a precedent may be set by such a determination. Jay, can we get back to jet engines don't burn fuel in flight? Or maybe an in depth discussion of the JT11D-20 engine? Or start a new topic -> 10 fun things you can do with triethylborane in your house?

    27. Ὅρα Μή·

      - Contained Failure - The amount of kinetic energy of all moving parts within a turbine engine, as most already understand, is tremendous. In the case of a catastrophic turbine engine failure, the energy released is equivalent/similar to that of a detonation of a high explosive (nitroglycerin, TNT, HMX). What the industry is realistically concerned about, is containing that "explosion", thus safeguarding the airframe from being damaged/destroyed, and the lives of the passengers from being put to danger by the high velocity shrapnel (fan blades, turbine disc etc). Debri/engine parts falling off harmlessly (hopefully) after that initial "explosion" is inevitable, and realistically unavoidable. If after a turbine engine failure, the engine cases are intact (not breached) that is in fact, and realistically speaking a successful contained failure. In other words, the engine cases have successfully contained the "explosion" (i.e. the lethal high energy/velocity shrapnel).

      1. Greatdome99

        Yes, but an explosion involves a chemical reaction. This was a mechanical "crash"

    28. Craig Arndt

      Wait until that clown from NBC News, Chief Aviation Correspondent gets his teeth into this engine failure. He works for the same company that tried to prove GM trucks gas tanks exploded. When they could get it to explode from a rear end collision, they planted explosives to be sure it would. The media is just a circus. This is a great channel.

    29. humanhiveanomaly

      Truth isn't as profitable as selling amplified and manufactured drama.

    30. vaughnbay

      The power of the cellphone camera! Had a few seconds of video not been recorded by a passenger we wouldn't have even heard of this failure. Humans like being emotional. It's more fun than being objective.

    31. desiatohotblack

      I'm sure the good folks over at the NTSB will get arrive at the right answers when the dust settles, but as long as we're all speculating: There ought to be some consideration that the broken fan blade might be a result, and not the cause. After all, severe vibration notwithstanding, no real theories have been offered as to why a thrown blade would cause a fire in the hot section. Compressor stalls could result in that. When they do occur --at a rate way more frequent than that of failed fan blades, I think-- they may manifest themselves across the whole range of drama, from the barely noticeable, discernable only by discrete powerplant-monitoring instrumentation, all the way to the very attention-grabbing loud bangs, explosions, and shaking, with flames blowtorching out of both the back and front ends. Along with broken engine parts, sometimes. "Axi-symmetric stall, more commonly known as compressor surge; or pressure surge, is a complete breakdown in compression resulting in a reversal of flow and the violent expulsion of previously compressed air out through the engine intake, due to the compressor's inability to continue working against the already-compressed air behind it." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor_stall "If... the conditions that induced the stall remain, the return of stable airflow will reproduce the conditions at the time of surge and the process will repeat." "Such a "locked-in" or self-reproducing stall is particularly dangerous, with very high levels of vibration causing accelerated engine wear and possible damage, even the total destruction of the engine through the breaking of compressor and stator vanes and their subsequent ingestion, destroying engine components downstream." Could happen. The NTSB investigation will reveal all.

    32. D. Geo

      As always excellent review thank you AgentZ.

    33. Justin Fritz

      Your recognition of the specialized knowledge that engineers possess is refreshing and appreciated. Good engineers recognize that the mechanics and maintenance personnel also possess the unique mix of knowledge and skills needed to make the whole big thing work. Great video!!

    34. A Hannam

      Praise the wing they can handle a lot of stress and load

    35. Star Gazer

      Love your channel and info however, if *I* were P&W, that particular engine would be scrapped after investigation. What customer (Boeing or airline) would want to take delivery of that particular engine?

      1. brbroberts

        @Star Gazer My point is the same as Jay’s, and it is the industry standard.

      2. Star Gazer

        @brbroberts as is yours.

      3. brbroberts

        @Star Gazer I don’t need to know what your knowledge or experience in aircraft maintenance is. Your point is idiotic.

      4. Star Gazer

        @brbroberts ​ @brbroberts You have NO idea of my knowledge or experience with aviation maintenance. My point is that what company would rather tell it's customers that they NEVER used that engine again, or tell them "Yeah, we rebuilt it". Perhaps you should better prepare economics for your conversation.... Car engines are far less money and easier to rebuild than an airplane engine. Not to mention the "can't pull over" argument. Let's wait and see who's right. If I'm right, I'll *expect* your apology. If you're right, I'll have NO problem saying so.

      5. brbroberts

        @Star Gazer Oh, it’s easy to see the fallacy in your statement now. You believe that the engine will not be viable if it’s repaired, however nothing is farther from the truth. You should educate yourself before commenting, it will better prepare you for conversation.

    36. Gavin Green

      Please don't stop your rantings you, Juan Browne and Victor at Vass Avaition are the no nonsense professionals. You have every right, you all tell it straight! Keep up the great work! Love to learn the incredible design and engineering that make these machines power our world. Bet we all would be lost if there were no turbine engines or those that keep them flying, etc.

    37. Adnan Kaba

      Engine is not scrap? are you serious? Sure as hell looks scrap to me! Why would they in their right mind even take a chance with repairing it with parts? That's absolute lunacy!

      1. L J

        @AgentJayZ Morning AgentJayZ. Yes, to a working stiff AMT like myself it's a hell of a lot of money! But like you said it'll be torn down, inspected piece by piece to determine what happened, and if there's anything left to salvage it'll be put back into service. It'll be interesting to see if the Feds require that the NDT inspection intervals be updated on the PW's. I don't work for UA, and my experience is mostly with GE's and Roll's, but whenever we pull blades for a fan lube the blades are NDT'ed before reinstallation. I'm sure UA does the same so I'm also curious to know why it failed. Had corrosion set in? Did a stress riser form due to FOD damage? Was the blade ever dropped? I can't imagine it left PW with a flaw in the metallurgy, but I guess it could happen. Regardless, I have no doubt Pratt, UA, and the Feds are all over this and will figure it out!

      2. AgentJayZ

        Thanks, L J. I just checked, and the new cost of P&W 4000-112 is 21 million US Dollars. That's a lot, right?

      3. L J

        It looked much worse than it actually was. That's a 10 million dollar engine, just for a worn out core, so yes it'll be repaired. People don't realize a lot of times on these older airframes the engines are worth more than the aircraft itself and most of times are leased.

      4. AgentJayZ

        So says another expert... Everything will be inspected, and each part will either fail or pass the required tests. If a part passes, it is serviceable. Now, Mr. Adnan Kaba: go away, read some books, and do not comment until you reach the minimum level of competency. Thank you.

    38. andy5478

      I'll tell you the same thing I told Blancoliro--- You have a fascinating channel and you do a great job explaining. But there is nothing to be gained by bashing the media and calling them alarmists. To your own admission this was a big deal. To the untrained it was even a bigger deal. Semantics of whether it was contained or uncontained is irrelevant to those involved and the community below where the parts rained down. I'm sure pax on the right side especially were terrified at the sight. You may have been as well if you were on that plane. I probably would have been as well and I'm a very calm person, ppl and engineer. The crew called may day which meant they thought it was a big deal as well. Even a contained failure can be deadly as we tragically witnessed on SW 1380. Seems like it was pure luck that the fan blade didn't rip through the cabin of this UAL flight in the same manner.

      1. D. Geo

        I don’t feel your accusations towards Blancolirio of bashing the media was anywhere near warranted but clearly understood by his viewers well, with the exception here, what he was referring too. I think the track record of the media with their hype and fabrication of incidences of this nature plus improper use of terms speaks for itself. You sound like a very knowledgeable person and your defense for the media may be due to having a relative or close friend in the occupation. However, to the loyal viewers it doesn’t hold water how they feel about them.

      2. AgentJayZ

        I don't have this channel to attack, defend, or argue. It's information based, where I share my work, and my opinions sometimes. All I can tell you is contained means the engine cases were not penetrated by engine parts. A lot of strange, unfortunate things happened with this engine, but the engine cases were not breached by anything. I am not interested in debating or redefining what accepted industry standards mean.

      3. andy5478

        @AgentJayZ Wasn't SW 1380 also a contained failure and a part from the engine broke the window resulting in the pax death? Maybe it wasn't a fan blade but something flew off that engine and broke the window that resulted in a tragic death. It has to be moving fast and deliver sufficient force to break the window. Also as for the blade not having high energy when it departed the engine, this is curious to me. It's spinning very fast and it wants to pull itself forward as it leaves the engine when it fails, doesn't it? It still must have a whole lot of centripetal force that wants to throw itself radially outward, no?

      4. AgentJayZ

        Everything you said was great. Right up until the last sentence. This was a contained failure, which means no high energy parts ripped through the cases and penetrated the fuselage. The whole contained/uncontained issue is of critical importance to the aircraft maker, and the engine maker... and to the people who did not die. Luck had nothing to do with it... it was engineering, and it was safety requirements set by the NTSB and the FAA, and it was the skills of the flight crew, who dealt with this engine failure in the best way that any crew could have. No injuries is the most important part of the story.

    39. charlie tang

      well explained with you in-depth knowledge. thx

    40. Arthur Saenz

      What I think I saw was yet another lack of proper ND Testing from United's engine overhaul practices. This is not the first time that this has happen to them. When the R/H start lever was moved to cutoff the EEC shut the engine off as its suppose to. The pylon fuel valve was closed by the R/H fire handle (there is no eng. 1 OR 2 on the 777) The fire in the right engine was the 5 quarts of fuel from the fuel filter case that ruptured at the lines and what was left from the main feed from the pylon. The 777 was climbing at a CLMB 1 power setting at a cost index of zero which translates to 314 knots when it gave way. Also when a two engine aircraft looses one of its engines, it a MAYDAY! This is standard world wide ICAO lingo and consistent with Boeing's FOM. Regardless of all the Monday night quarterbacking. Mine included. United has to answer as well as the ENGINE PMI (FAA) for lack of proper Non destructive testing and oversight of the fan blades.

    41. Jerry Foust

      Could not the engine and or the wing have easily exploded into flame?

      1. AgentJayZ

        If it was easy, it woulda happened.

    42. Lon LeVine

      Hi AgentJayZ. If the outer half of the broken blade was found in the soccer field amongst the cowling debris, and the other blade was found in the fuselage wing/LG fairing, it does not sound very contained to me. Perhaps the Kevlar blanket contained the blades at failure, but then they escaped? Kudos to Boeing for building an aircraft that could stand up to that vibrational abuse.

    43. Stephen Gile

      Don't know which videos you have watched but, in one of the ones I saw, for just a moment it looked like the was light passing through the Kevlar containment blanket at approximately the 11:00 to 11:30 position. My guess would be that the 1st fan blade that separated struck the 2nd blade on it's way out, fracturing it, then cutting through the nose cowl causing it to separate, with the rest of the cowl panels, not wanting to be left out, followed very quickly due to the slipstream air pressure. The second fan blade, the one with the outer 1/3 to 1/2 gone, may be the one that made the hole in the Kevlar containment blanket. . Just my thoughts and even though DIA is just a stones throw away, doubt they would let my butt in to look....LOL. Nice to have an A&P's side of the story.

    44. Bryan Rocker

      INHO, the High Pressure compressor and its turbine(s) are probably trashed as well. When fan blades break off the collateral damage to the nacelle, other fan blades etc send bits of metal down stream and ultimately pass through the rest of the engine increasing the damage as it goes along. The fire in the thrust reverser area looks like an oil (hydraulic/lubricating). I don't trust the mainstream media to get anything right. P&W needs to get to the root of this problem and resolve it. This is not the first engine to have this failure mode.

    45. Covid Hoax

      Everybody is the expert on the internet.

    46. Andrew

      Journalism is on life support these days. Most newspapers will just google "jet expert" and call the first number they find without checking if the person knows what they're talking about. That's assuming they even call somebody and don't just guess on their own.

    47. Robert Bandusky

      When engine fire handle was pulled, we’re all fluids shutoff? Fuel, oil, hydraulics cutoff? Source of fire could have been hydraulic fluid or as you mentioned oil?

      1. Stephen Britt

        @AgentJayZ Absolutely correct, it is also possible a small amount of fuel or hydraulic oil was still making it to the engine. The expression at the Part 135 operation I worked at was: "Old valves tend to be "slow down" valves rather than complete "shut off" valves."

      2. Mark Thompson

        When the Fire extinguisher handle is pulled it automatically shut off engine fuel.

      3. AgentJayZ

        There is no magic valve that handles everything. The oil is in a tank on the engine. Even if hydraulic fluid was shut off to the engine, the amount that was already there would suffice to keep such a small fire going for a few minutes.

    48. John van Kampen

      The same day above Meerssen, Netherlands, was rained by turbine parts from a B747 going to Lége (Luik) in Belgium due to engine failure: irvision.info/home/oWOdmoxzqauGmKg/fy-lm-h-y.html

    49. Matthew Spychalski

      What do you think caused the damage to the underbelly of the plane? Just a piece of the outer casing shooting off?

      1. Matthew Spychalski

        @AgentJayZ awesome, just watched that, makes sense. Thanks for your video too, very informative

      2. AgentJayZ

        The NTSB has released an early statement about this. Blancolirio mention it in his latest vid.

    50. zoidberg444

      Great to get all the facts. Aviation info for me is generally broncolirio or mentour pilot. You're the man for jet engines. 👌

    51. Rob P.

      Hairline Cracked fan blades is nothing new and FAA directives were already in place for X-raying fan blades at certain maintenance intervals - were these established FAA maintenance directives ignored or was this a failure in spite of the maintenance? In other words, was this engine maintained to existing standards or is it negligence?

      1. Stephen Britt

        Per the EAD, the FAA is requiring thermal imaging tests and reviewing previous tests on the blades. A previous blade failure in 2018 on a P&W 4000 had already prompted increased inspections on the fan blades. (Obviously did not solve the issue unfortunately.)

    52. Robert Davis

      I think one of the blades failed and took out another one. I've flown times when a return to the FBO was needed because of an bad indicator light. A PITA. But I appreciate the Airline Co. taking safety seriously. Great observations Agent Jay Z!

    53. Fernando Lichtschein

      Thanks for the explanation, when I saw the flames I thought I was looking at the exposed insides of the combustors.

    54. A R

      I agree that MSM makes too much of aviation events. But it was an emergency and a serious event. Everyone stop complaining about MSM lying. It’s hyperbole and exaggeration out of ignorance, not lying. And by the way, there was an explosion strong enough to shed aircraft aircraft parts so that was a pretty major engine failure.

      1. D. Geo

        Hyperbole or exaggeration out of ignorance it’s still unprofessional and uncalled for.

    55. Bogbanter

      Question: was that damaged engine still producing thrust? Or it spinning due to air speed?

      1. D. Geo

        You should subscribe to Juan’s channel he like AgentZ explained that very well.

      2. James Samuel

        If it didn’t windmill it would create excessive drag and make the aircraft very difficult to fly.

      3. Johan Fasth

        It's windmilling as he said.

    56. Draviator

      Are you saying that the media is using fear-mongering to inflate a certain event? That's just impossible!

      1. D. Geo

        The object to them is to get the majority to watch or read their Channel because it’s more interesting. Of course this is totally opposite of reporting the straight facts and not in line with what they’re real position should be.

      2. Johan Fasth

        :) Spot on...

    57. Paul Glinz

      I am struggling to understand, If none of the separated fan blades or fragments were to be found WITHIN the engine (I assume they were not-I may be wrong), then did they not DEPART the engine? And if so, how could that then be labelled a "contained failure" if they are nowhere to be seen ?

      1. Ὅρα Μή·

        ​@Paul Glinz Sir. The amount of kinetic energy of all moving parts within a turbine engine, as you already understand, is tremendous. In the case of a catastrophic turbine engine failure, the energy released is equivalent/similar to that of a detonation of a high explosive (nitroglycerin, TNT, HMX). What the industry is realistically concerned about, is containing that "explosion", thus safeguarding the airframe from being damaged/destroyed, and the lives of the passengers from being put to danger by the high velocity shrapnel (fan blades, turbine disc etc). Debri/engine parts falling off harmlessly (hopefully) after that initial "explosion" is inevitable, and realistically unavoidable. If after a turbine engine failure, the engine cases are intact (not breached) that is in fact, and realistically speaking a successful contained failure. In other words, the engine cases have successfully contained the "explosion" (i.e. the lethal high energy/velocity shrapnel).

      2. damientelle

        @AgentJayZ exactly it is a contained engine failure as it is defined for engine certification : no radial ejection of engine parts. for exemple AF and QL A380 engine failure were uncontained engine failure: Engine fairing gone as well but Fan gone on AF and HPT ripped off on QL. in both cases radial ejection did damaged wing and fuselage. UAL fligth may have damaged on wings due to fairing impact but these are low energy impact resulting of the aerodynamic forces applied on the fairing, not high kinetic energy impact resulting from rotating blades.

      3. Paul Glinz

        @AgentJayZ Thanks for the explanation. Don't get p.o.'d I'm just trying to learn something. Obviously I'm not a pilot or mechanic, just trying to understand the terminology being applied. Obviously it is a very "narrow" and legalistic definition of the word "contained" and not one used in everyday speech which is what most of the planet uses.

      4. AgentJayZ

        So tired of trying to explain to you people... Conversational definitions of words mean whatever you want. The industry definition of contained means the engine cases were not breached. The engine cases were not breached.

      5. Quill Maurer

        My understanding is that it can still be considered a contained failure if debris was ejected out the back, presumably not at extremely high speed, as that shouldn't damage the rest of the aircraft or endanger anyone - nothing behind the engine for it to hit. Uncontained would mean it threw stuff out the side or front that could damage the rest of the aircraft or injure it's occupants.

    58. Dave Shepherd

      Thanks for spreading the truth!

    59. HuckThis1971

      I worked at Rolls-Royce Canada and I knew right away it was missing fan blades from that wobble. Engine design did its job of Containing the failure. Kevlar ring did its job. Worse case engine mounting bolts would have sheared and engine would have detached.

    60. Dennis Salisbury

      The reason I ignore the MSM at all times, they are worthless clickbait whores not worthy of the title journalists.

      1. Dennis Salisbury

        @lysippus We live in a world of compromises.

      2. lysippus

        and youtube and youtube recco. is not? haaha.

    61. viperdriver82

      I believe what they meant by "not an emergency landing" is that they won't have to brace during the landings

      1. Quill Maurer

        It would have been considered an emergency landing in that the pilots declared a mayday, but once actually landing it was a normal landing, and at that point I would imagine they wouldn't have asked passengers to brace.

    62. Calvin Dodge

      To be fair, some blade fragments made a hole in the wing-body fairing on that side.

      1. D. Geo

        @Calvin Dodge Geeze now that’s a real head scratcher huh? The response is made under your posted response. Ok to be more clear, AgentJayZ went thru great lengths to explain everything and patiently had to explain it all over again. In particular he clearly explained the quick use of wrong terms and inflation of such contradicting those made by officials involved in the investigation. One in question was parts whose nomenclature describes them as part of the engine or part of the aircraft airframe. At the time of your response the cause of damage at the wing fairing was unknown, to be fair. I hope I explained my simple response a little more so that you may understand it now. Oh your more than welcome.

      2. Calvin Dodge

        @D. Geo Huh? Who or what are you referring to?

      3. D. Geo

        I think we have a media infiltrated here

      4. Calvin Dodge

        @AgentJayZ Thanks for the info.

      5. AgentJayZ

        We don't know they were blade fragments, to be fair...

    63. Joe Danay

      Thanks, Jay! I'm 4 days behind on this. Glad there's no injuries. Passengers will need laundry services;)

    64. Dr. Qaiser Haider

      You are the guy who exactly knows what you are talking about. The total control over the subject. Love it.

    65. Star Trooper

      L.p. shaft would break it's designed to fail in blade out event.

      1. L M

        what the crap? no definitely not

      2. AgentJayZ

        No.

    66. grahamj9101

      I've seen Juan Brown's latest video clip, which he posted outside the Albert Hall in London, after a ten-hour flight with tons of Californian asparagus in the back. I'm sorry (not really), but he got a black mark from me for being thoroughly irresponsible, and doing walkabout when we're in lockdown and being told to "stay at home"

      1. grahamj9101

        @John Watkin We are in lockdown and we are being told to stay home, unless we have a "reasonable excuse" - and that incudes him. That's the law: he broke the law. I've visited the States a few times and I'm sure that I was exected to obey the law in the USA.

      2. D. Geo

        @Jesse W right with all of southern FL rotting away with the mess.

      3. D. Geo

        Huh! Now how do you suppose he’s to do his job as a pilot at home plus he was out in the open and around no one in close proximity. He also started out wearing a mask that was removed by the London breeze. Come on we have enough agitators don’t need anymore.

      4. Jesse W

        I'm in Florida we don't even wear masks and been open for months. We have the lowest transmission rates btw

      5. Jesse W

        You're nuts

    67. Yogib37

      just found your channel. I agree with you on everything. I subcribed to the blanco channel and what you said about him is spot on, but he tell it in a normal way so other people can understand. I dont like the Media just jumping in and say it is this or that, I knew even before the picture was uploaded it was caused by a blade the let go. I guess the media has never seen pictures on a normal engine change that the Nacell's are still attached to the plane.. You are right it is part of the plane. I am an A&P but have not been working on planes for a very long time.

    68. abcd60528

      Very true that it was very lucky!

    69. David Sullivan

      For the media, this is an entertainment event. The more drama the higher the ratings. Facts are not relevant.

      1. thomas mcdonald

        Man that’s the truth!

      2. Mikeydude001

        People personally involved in something the media reports about knows that the media usually gets the facts wrong. Then we go on to the next story and believe it? LOL.

    70. Ron Adams

      Thanks for the break-down and info. Good stuff, well presented!

    71. Herbert Laughlin

      I think that the fan blades failed due to metal fatigue and 1.5 fan blades exited out the front taking the engine inlet cowling and the main cowling mounting bracket with it. In addition, it appeared from the video that the engine lost all of it covers when the main cowling support bracket was severed by parts of the fan. That 8 foot long heavy chunk of metal that hit the street next to an SUV, heard audibly, falling from 14,000 feet, gaining speed every second until impact could have cause catastrophic damage had it hit a home. I bet when they examine the broken blades, they discover that they failed due to loss of stiffness. The same thing that happens to steel ships on the ocean. They are forced to be retired do to metal fatigue. Metal that flexes looses stiffness and after a period of time, it breaks! Why are they ignoring the facts????

      1. D. Geo

        Until it reaches terminal velocity, BTW what news paper do you write for?

      2. clapanse

        It's certainly possible it was a fatigue failure, and this wouldn't be the first undetected fatigue failure on one of these. aerossurance.com/safety-management/ndi-failures-b777-pw4077-fbo/ I've also heard some speculation that it's possibly a bird strike, but we'll probably need to wait for the incident report to know for sure.

      3. azonicrider32

        @Herbert Laughlin Dude, you are explaining the abc's to rocket scientists..

      4. Herbert Laughlin

        @grahamj9101 Thanks for your comment and I agree. I suggest that hollow blades on larger applications may have increased stresses not previously determined?

      5. grahamj9101

        The industry knows far more about metal fatigue than you do - obviously. Components such as blades are designed to avoid excessive excitation that will result in them having unacceptably low fatigue lives, and they are rigorously inspected at repair and overhaul for any signs of fatigue. Major components, such as discs and shafts are designed to a 'predicted safe cyclic life' (PSCL), but are cleared for only a small proportion of their PSCL at entry into service, with lives being extended progressively, by means of sampling and inspection. It is probable that there is some internal non-conforming feature, relative to design intent, in those blades that have failed, which cannot be inspected easily. The vast majority of blades have, after all, run perfectly safely for tens of thousands of hours. If they hadn't done so, then there would have been the risk of engine and/or cowling debris being scattered around the world years ago, and PW 4000 engines would have been grounded years ago.

    72. Almerinda Romeira

      So the giant hole in the fuselage was already there?? It IS an uncontainned failure engine...

      1. uploadJ

        @Almerinda Romeira re: "you shouldn't rate it for how bad it was, but how bad it could have been." Just have to say, this is NUTS. I'll bet you're for outcome based equality too, and not for equal opportunity to SUCCEED!

      2. Almerinda Romeira

        @Yogib37 you shouldn't rate it for how bad it was, but how bad it could have been. I know its non critical but if it broke it, it could easily also have ruptured a line or cable behind it. After all composites have sharp edges. I'll wait for the final report, as I'm not so convinced it was just a cowling piece.

      3. Yogib37

        @Almerinda Romeira that is an aerodynamic fairing.. It is nothing but just a thin piece of composite. Nothing under that was damage and it was not caused by the fan blade, It most likely was part of the Nacell that broke off and hit it. It is still a contain engine failure. The engine was in tack and not scatter all over the place

      4. Ron Adams

        Sorry, I corrected my original response. I'm not sure why, but I typed "uncontained", when he actually said they did "not consider it to be uncontained". Regardless, I understand the liability issue. irvision.info/home/XofMeX-ll7dmaso/fy-lm-h-y.html

      5. AgentJayZ

        Ron. It is a very important detail. Who gets blamed for the millions of dollars in damage... the aircraft maker or the engine maker? The NTSB has decided this was a contained engine failure. The blame game is complicated, but crucial.

    73. SIE44TAR

      11:18 "I gotta say, the journalists know nothing. They don't know anything." Yep, that about sums up today's media.

      1. lysippus

        That sums up about today's politicians.

    74. yankmyfinger

      Great analysis JayZ. Good Job. I agree with everything you said. Retired airline pilot here. This was a textbook simulator event. We would train for this type of event every year. The weather was good. It was daylight. Great airport, Aircraft, ATC and well trained pilots.

    75. Nicholas Pratt

      Where did the missing 1½ fan blades go after leaving that cut in the front air inlet ring..

      1. Robert Slugg

        @grahamj9101 Yes, I saw that, but portion is pretty non-specific. I am guessing that it is smaller than "chunk." ;-) I did once work in a lab where smidge, tad, little, and lot had specific numerical values assigned to them.

      2. grahamj9101

        @Robert Slugg Juan Brown, in his latest Blancolirio video, reports that a portion of one fan blade was found stuck somewhere in the casing, "at the one o'clock position", while another portion of a fan blade was found on the sports field where other debris fell. Which portion is from the blade that suffered the primary failure, and which is from the blade that is assumed (for the moment) to have been brought off by the primary failure, we'll have to wait for the NTSB.

      3. Herbert Laughlin

        My question too. Thanks Dude!!!

      4. Robert Slugg

        Speculation is that one blade cut through the front cowling (large diagonal slash) which then accelerated that separation as an intact piece. Will be interesting to see where and when the blade fragments are found. 99.9% contained is probably the more accurate assessment if 34lbs of carbon and/or titanium exited the front on the way down. If blade is rotating at 600 mph and plane is flying 200 mph then the odds are higher that the blade will go forward at that point in time. But what do I know?

    76. supercat380

      Excellent commentary and analysis, Agent JZ! Nice to hear some logic after all the nonsense expressed by the fake news media and other so- called aviation experts!

      1. supercat380

        @lysippus you are absolutely correct, Sir!!

      2. lysippus

        Excellent commentary by you as well. I wish more people would cancel media, who cares anymore? NYT? lol. WaPo? These people should be put in jail for false things. I watched a show on fox that aviation expert David Johannson (he flew dc-10's for 40 years) explained how this thing happens. The federal government is always to blame. Simple as that.

    77. paulsautocm

      BRAVO, this is why I follow you and Blancollrio. Keep up the GREAT work!

    78. Rocco Sound

      Excellent video, keep up the good work. So nice to hear cool calm engineering facts. Ive been an engineer working on PT6 TPE-331 and CFM56 for the last 33 years. This is a bit similar to the Southwest Airlines 737 incident in which the tremendous energy from the contained engine failure caused the cowl hinges or cowl latches to fail, thus causing the cowl to break up and separate from the airplane. Most people don't appreciate the amount of energy involved in a broken fan blade. In both the Southwest incident and United 328 incident the engine failures were contained. Well done to the boys who designed the debris containment shield-it worked as advertised.

    79. Brian Whippen

      How many engine hours on this engine or the fan would be more important because that seems to be the actual failure. More importantly probably landing takeoffs would give more insight I’m sure the experts will figure this out and make a correction. I am a mechanic as well, think about the load on that blade when the engine is nearly full thus going down the runway.

      1. azonicrider32

        Ya they should check the mileage on that puppy, probably way past its oil change!

    80. a4yster

      Is that Moldovan flag?? Surprising to say the least!

    81. Armorer 94

      According to Blancolirio, the 1/2 blade was found inside the compressor stage. The complete blade is still MIA.

    82. android emulator

      Calm , lucid , sensible facts .. thanks :)

    83. William Pickett

      Was that a JT-8 C-2 Fan disk that you had leaning their on your right

      1. AgentJayZ

        RR Spey

    84. yxvpjs

      Jayz ... what engine behind you ... very interesting ... does it P&W J75 ... (just guest)

      1. AgentJayZ

        Orenda 14 out of an F-86F Sabre / Canadair Sabre 6

    85. Android811

      I would NOT like to be the guy who signed off on the last fan inspection when the FAA comes knocking.

      1. thomas mcdonald

        Hopefully he works at a shop that has equipment to record all their inspections in detail for just such an event.

    86. mer8771

      Thank you for putting the truth out, I just wish people or the human condition would allow people to believe it. I've seen you stand up for what is right over the years and I think you for it. People really need to question everything and not believe the first person who opens their mouth or speaks the loudest. Truly an unbelievable job you do to disseminate knowledge. 👍 Juan Browne or, blancolirio is great at the other part of aviation just as you said.

    87. First Last

      One blade or part of coming off the fan disk and causing the damage that it did is by all technical definitions, an uncontained engine failure. It's not drama, it's a simple fact.

      1. Kalvinjj

        The strict definition of an uncontained engine failure is that any debris or engine parts that fail penetrate the protections and exit through those protections. Simply put, the engine's cowling cannot hold the parts inside, does not contain them. A part that exits through the back of the engine for example, but didn't manage to open the protective rings is still considered a contained engine failure. Same if the part got stuck on that protection but didn't exit through it. The engine covers you see from outside don't count for that definition, they're mostly there for aerodynamics reasons. If it does whoever open up a hole through it, that in turn is uncontained. The definition itself can only be properly applied after inspecting the engine tho, from the angle seen it could very well have been uncontained if there was a hole open on the side not seen by the passengers, tho there wasn't thankfully. AgentJayZ could have been far more helpful on the reply tho no doubt. just that whole lot of "ignorant" there helped literally no one. If it was well defined on the the video, a time stamp would be enough. Otherwise, just copy and paste the definition also works.

      2. AgentJayZ

        You are completely incorrect. That is forgivable because there is a very strict definition of uncontained, of which you are completely ignorant. FYI : on Feb 23 , the NTSB described the failure as contained. So you are doubly ignorant. Put that on a sticker, and have a grown up stick it on your back. Then go away. Thank you.

    88. TransitBiker

      “The engine exploded” direct words from news outlet.

    89. Brother Malachai

      Wanted to share this as a pilot spoke on the same incident from his perspective. irvision.info/home/oma9npqkaZulrrw/fy-lm-h-y.html

    90. mikoyanfulcrum1

      I love it how boeing's stock took a hit yet Boeing doesnt make engines,.... Stupid public!!!

      1. Android811

        That's a buying opportunity!

    91. Brother Malachai

      When the investigation report inevitably comes out, can you come back and comment more on this incident from an insider's perspective?

    92. Mark Grant

      Journalists over reaction is so sad. Love you guys always!

      1. Brother Malachai

        Journalists are going to muckrake. "If it bleeds it leads."

    93. BMachine2

      Thanks AgentJayZ, always glad to learn from you. Can you do a followup on this once they have the whole story?

    94. fzj801996

      Thanks AgentJayZ for posting this!

    95. Cheezy Dee

      I'm an aerospace technician with approximately 7 hours of experience watching turbine engine videos and I have conducted my own investigation of the incident and I have concluded that the engine went "kaboom", not the "Big Badda Boom" as reported in the media as there were no burn marks on the wing and apparently no holes in the fuselage as the passengers were able to video the wobbly smoldering engine. I also believe the engine is not shaking due to imbalance but it is in fact shivering due to it's clothes being ripped off in midair in subzero temperatures.

      1. AgentJayZ

        That's pretty weezy, Cheezy Dee, but I like it! We could use someone like you, to translate between shop talk that the people working on the engines use, and whatever flavor of double-speak garble that management uses this year. "moving forward" I'm barfing now...

    96. Steve Roberts

      Really glad you got that off your chest Jay :D

    97. Jaja Jaja

      This is not the first time these engines has failed . Next time it can be worst . I believe the FAA put a service warning out on these engines.

    98. Luk S

      Love the engine vids thanks for explaining.

    99. theonlyari

      With this much sensationalism, imagine what would happen if there was a pandemic!

      1. Robert Slugg

        They have contained themselves to only be off by an order of magnitude on that one, so far, IMHO. There is a lot of difference between dying "with" something and dying "from" something, which got lost a long time ago.

    100. A Mascia

      Like you said: could have been much worse. Sometimes things work. 👍🏼🤠