INCIDENT REVIEW - American Airlines Boeing 787 Engine Ingests Cargo Container at O'Hare [10.17.24]

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 5 дек 2024

Комментарии • 463

  • @AHomelessDorito
    @AHomelessDorito Месяц назад +207

    The problem is there’s limited crossing points while managers demand you be on time. Safety isn’t followed from the top down this incident happens constantly because of pressure to be on time.

    • @sunshineflyer
      @sunshineflyer Месяц назад +40

      Hopefully it will be shown to shiny new managers who think they can polish their horn by harassing workers reporting to them to work to unsafe speeds.
      What if it had been the worker who got pushed into the engine?

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +40

      Absolutely true. I've had a lot of hot bags in my carts where I had to wait 5-10 minutes or more waiting to cross. I've had to double back and take the other service road along the Southern edge of T5 to get across. Takes longer, but it's less of a bottleneck over there and it's safer than attempting what's in the video.

    • @77GolfXray
      @77GolfXray Месяц назад +19

      There's absolutely no excuse for doing this, even if they were trying to be on time. Never drive behind an aircraft that has it's beacons on.

    • @alje311
      @alje311 Месяц назад +15

      @@sunshineflyer managers don't care, they'll back off for a week and then it'll be back to business-as-usual screaming at employees to get the cargo out on time.

    • @same5952
      @same5952 Месяц назад +10

      B.S. Safety is on YOU!

  • @DavidWsTrainVideos
    @DavidWsTrainVideos Месяц назад +114

    I saw this comment on another video, but I think it applies here. “The driver of that tug just became the subject of future training videos”

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +9

      I keep hearing that he's a stellar employee and that this was a bad mistake. This looks like a lot more than a bad mistake to me. I don't know the guy, I cant speak for the rest of his work, but this is really bad. If I made a mistake like this, I'd expect to deal with the consequences of my actions.

    • @DavidWsTrainVideos
      @DavidWsTrainVideos Месяц назад +1

      @@ChicagoAirportSpotter Id say it was a Bad, Expensive Mistake. But still a mistake nonetheless. I’m sure he had the “Oh #$*%” moment we all would’ve had when he heard those engines spool up on the Air France, and saw those containers skidding towards the American Plane. I agree hopefully he owns up to it and learns from the mistake. Now, whether thats with his current employer, or someone else, completely depends on his attitude.

  • @litz13
    @litz13 Месяц назад +217

    That's a twenty million dollar engine.
    Very pricey accident indeed.

    • @Rev1Kev
      @Rev1Kev Месяц назад +6

      Yup the GEnx and Trent 1000 have a cost of around 20 million each

    • @gwiyomikim5988
      @gwiyomikim5988 Месяц назад +5

      $20 million sounds like a bargain. I’ve seen $28 million. But in any case, a very costly incident.

    • @dabneyoffermein595
      @dabneyoffermein595 Месяц назад +2

      300,000 per fan blade? That sounds extreme

    • @67Endgame
      @67Endgame Месяц назад +11

      @@dabneyoffermein595 Everything, all components in those engines are fabricated to precision from premium materials. This is why they are so costly.

    • @Chris_at_Home
      @Chris_at_Home Месяц назад +8

      ⁠​⁠@@67EndgameI worked on the assembly floor at P&WA a couple years in the late 1970s. Even then JT-9s were close to $2million. The paperwork for each engine was crazy. We used to kid around that when the weight of the paper equaled the weight of the engine the engine was done.

  • @othername1000
    @othername1000 Месяц назад +167

    So finally, a reasonable straightforward explanation as to where your luggage went. The French did it.

    • @Thankz4sharing
      @Thankz4sharing Месяц назад

      I always blame the French. Not because they are particularly responsible. It’s just traditional.

    • @ata38-30
      @ata38-30 Месяц назад +15

      the french made it, the american ate it. C'est la vie

    • @barbaravyse660
      @barbaravyse660 Месяц назад

      😂

    • @flightforensics4523
      @flightforensics4523 Месяц назад

      😅😅😅

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +11

      The French aircraft was quoted as having said "so long, Ricky Bobby!"

  • @MarcSlicer-n2o
    @MarcSlicer-n2o Месяц назад +104

    Dad is a retired Pratt jet engineer -
    He said there is no way in hell that engine will be rebuild - the inspection of every part from the imaging , dyes , measuring weighing would cost more than a new engine -
    It’s also an insurance loss so the company is happy to repair the structure on the aircraft and slap a new engine on

    • @car2069
      @car2069 Месяц назад +1

      Dad is wrong. Engine will be swapped, sent to MRO facility and fully rebuilt. FOD damage occurs daily, this is no big deal. It just looks cool.

    • @RC-fp1tl
      @RC-fp1tl Месяц назад +13

      @@car2069this wasn’t FOD, this was FCD- foreign CAN debris.
      When was the last time you heard of a turbofan ingesting 150 lbs of aluminum??

    • @car2069
      @car2069 Месяц назад +1

      @@RC-fp1tl Doesnt matter what it ingests, it goes to MRO and gets torn down, tested and reassembled.

    • @OpenCarryUSMC
      @OpenCarryUSMC 13 дней назад

      @@car2069it will get torn down at an MRO but no part of that engine will ever fly again unless it’s as a new product made from the recycled metals.
      No insurance company would allow it.
      No airline would install it.
      The liability should a crash occur with such parts in an aircraft would be insane and no one will take that liability on.
      Further, every individual rotating part would have to be inspected to the maximum degree possible even to consider what might be salvageable.
      Nope, that puppy is a scrap heap bound for the recycling furnaces.

  • @Letsberealish
    @Letsberealish Месяц назад +110

    The driver is lucky he didn't end up in the engine. Scary.

    • @trilight3597
      @trilight3597 Месяц назад +5

      Or as I heard it called, a very expensive human blender.

    • @barbaravyse660
      @barbaravyse660 Месяц назад +2

      That’s what I was thinking.

    • @cyclepath55555
      @cyclepath55555 Месяц назад +1

      Or she?

    • @Letsberealish
      @Letsberealish Месяц назад +5

      @@cyclepath55555 If it were a woman she would have just kept driving without realizing what happened

    • @stephanparis6887
      @stephanparis6887 Месяц назад +4

      ​@@LetsberealishLOL funny as hell but very true, someone would have had to chase her down just to let her know that something bad just happened.

  • @jme36053
    @jme36053 Месяц назад +45

    Thanks for sharing your knowledge about this incident. It adds clarity and understanding for us who are less informed.

    • @davidsmiths5471
      @davidsmiths5471 Месяц назад

      Poor knowledge! What airlines,contractor or airport. Teaches any type of vehicle drive behind a aircraft that has its engines running!

  • @Adair9800
    @Adair9800 Месяц назад +14

    Good briefing on the luggage carts. Flew the 787 for my last 5 years. I saw another reader mentioned 20 million for one Pratt. The price for these aircraft (787-8) is just a little over 200 million. The 787-9 is over 240 million, and the 787-10 just under 300 million.
    The OP mentioned he drives a fair amount at ORD. At least from my experience, ground handlers in O’Hare are pretty good about safe driving on the tarmac, as in not usually cutting us off as we were taxiing. There definitely have been countless ‘incidents’ at other airports (never at any of our international destinations….only in U.S. airports) where I had to slow or even stop the aircraft while a baggage handler crosses right in front of us, sometimes the driver not even looking. Just surprised this doesn’t happen more often.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +6

      I was a ramp controller for a few years, I took a lot of calls from pilots giving me the company name and vehicle number of vehicles that cut them off. And by "a lot" I mean 10-15 over 4-5 years. 1 is a lot, tbh. I followed up on every single one because I didn't want that idiocy on my ramp.
      I remember one time I sheepishly slowed to a halt by the F Alley, and an RJ pilot waved me through. I looked around me, saw that everything was good, and I scooted across in front of him, gave him a thumbs-up, and immediately got pulled over by airport security 🤣 He let me go, though.

    • @Adair9800
      @Adair9800 Месяц назад +4

      @@ChicagoAirportSpotter Always like to read about that type of story. Never was based in ORD, except for a month back in the mid 80s. Actually one of the best airports, excellent ATC, operations, as well as the city itself. Never visited any Ramp Controller, but did a tour of our OPs in SFO as I had a friend working there. Anyways, I just remembered that I need to subscribe to your channel. Retirement is fun every single day, but I still remain interested in Safety, CRM, etc.

  • @thunderbolt513
    @thunderbolt513 Месяц назад +32

    I`m an ex- air traffic controler, and when I was in the active duty, no vehicule,whatsoever was allowed to cross taxyways, or move around taxiing aircraft without permission.

    • @wgraham2410
      @wgraham2410 Месяц назад +3

      O'Hare is a different beast. Unfortunately we have many service roads crossing TWY's here.

    • @jackgallagher4146
      @jackgallagher4146 Месяц назад +4

      the airport i work at requires at least two aircraft lengths in either direction in order to proceed and cross. what on earth is that person doing crossing right behind an aircraft. If that's an accepted policy of the airport then thats insane

    • @snakerstran9101
      @snakerstran9101 Месяц назад

      Yeah, its standard to have restricted areas around running acft engines. An ingestion zone in front of the acft engines and a blast zone behind the engines. That tug should have been prohibited from going behind the front one, with the exception of a taxi control specifically directing both the acft and the tug for that maneuver so the acft would know not to throttle up.
      The other thing is ground equipment being required to cross both taxi ways in one move. Thats moronic. Looking at the overhead view at 7:00 it appears that they could move the taxi lines farther apart from each other and make that center median crossing a required stop instead of a forced kamikaze.

  • @rtregay6255
    @rtregay6255 Месяц назад +12

    If that service road is that heavily travelled on a daily basis, they really need a tunnel. As for the video: thank you for posting and explaining. I have just 2 comments for improvement : about 3;40 you are talking about damage to the engine but the visual is still the container graphic. And at 5:06-5:35 a highlighter or arrow or something would have been helpful for the viewer. It's not a diagram most are familiar with and it seemed very detailed. BUT THANK YOU! It's a great vid and great explanation of the situation.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +4

      I'm still getting the hang of video editing, lol. I'll work on that in the future. Thank you for the feedback.

  • @JoeKubinec
    @JoeKubinec Месяц назад +6

    Totally awesome presentation. You hit a home run with this. T/Y for putting it together and posting.

  • @fredfred2363
    @fredfred2363 Месяц назад +18

    Clear, well documented video. A good reference. 👍🏻🇬🇧

  • @deborahdunn4628
    @deborahdunn4628 Месяц назад +21

    Great video, Chicago Airport Spotter. I thought it was going to be a fake because the “goods” were over two minutes in but I was pleasantly surprised. And your knowledge about the incident is a bonus. Keep up the good work.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +1

      I wouldn't do that to you guys 😆 Thank you for watching.

    • @dmc3489
      @dmc3489 Месяц назад

      @@ChicagoAirportSpotter In a world full of clickbait you stand apart. Thank you for keeping it real and doing an excellent and concise presentation.

  • @lorettavanhaasteren2776
    @lorettavanhaasteren2776 Месяц назад +8

    Wow! I never thought something like that would happen. Thanks for a very well presented video and analysis. Glad no one was hurt but I bet the driver won’t be working there anymore.

  • @pauldrusch1805
    @pauldrusch1805 Месяц назад +2

    Oustanding analysis and summation! Keep doing these, very helpful to those of us that operate aircraft in/out of ORD.

  • @Hurricane96
    @Hurricane96 Месяц назад +30

    There used to be a road that went between L and M that went UNDER the taxiways.....why did CDA close it????? This would have prevented this.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +27

      You mean the "depressed roadway" that parallels the tram tracks? That's still there, but most people don't know about that road. I myself didn't know about that road until a few years into my airport career.

    • @dantracy621
      @dantracy621 Месяц назад +5

      You may be surprised that the CDA for YEARS has had ZERO concept of how to design and implement the “new” ORD. This bottleneck here is the result of a complete lack of knowledge of how airport traffic should be managed and routed. Until they get off their collective A$$es and build two “end around” taxiways at the west end of 28R and 27L this issue will remain.

  • @Synergy7Studios
    @Synergy7Studios Месяц назад +37

    A&P currently doing heavy checks on 737s here. Most likely the majority of the debris when through the bypass duct. Many of those front fan blades look ok from those pictures. It's possible most of the compressor and turbine stages are ok. Mechanics can swap this engine and inspect the pylon in 24 hours if theyre properly equiped at this airport. You'll need a new intake to bolt onto the new engine. The engine will go back to the manufacturer and get a complete overhaul. Most likely it will just need a lot of new blades. The shafts, cases, accessories, etc are probably all fine. It takes a lot to make an engine not worth salavaging at all.
    Edit: someone below says his dad is a Pratt and Whitney engineer and he says it will be scrapped. If a P&W guy says it then I would defer to him, although engineers don't always know how maintenance really gets handled so it depends on their exact role. If they really do have to do crack inspections on every single part then I could see them scraping it, but I think it would be worth it to use any good parts as spares.

    • @larrybremer4930
      @larrybremer4930 Месяц назад +2

      I agree accessories, and various parts will be salvageable, probably even undamaged and after inspection will be put into the spares bin, but I have my doubts that the engine core is at all repairable. I have no doubt a few pounds of metal passed through the hot section and centrifugal forces of anything that temporarily hung up on a fan or turbine blade would be flung out from the disk along with likely some broken off blades and impacted all along the inner walls of the core sections. Some probably jammed up as well putting torque that would likely bring shafts out of true, but they are pretty beefy so possibly that is one part inside the core that can be reused along with some injectors, but I think the rest would be too far gone since the disks, blades, and stator vanes were pitted, bent or scratched if not broken. I am not an engine mechanic but knowing how much damage a large bird can do (at 10 lbs or so) and birds being quite a bit softer and lighter than aluminum box that engine swallowed there is no doubt it was catastrophically damaged. I would bet that engine core and 90% of what is inside it is done. If I am not mistaken the guys helmet that went into an engine when he got sucked into the intake of an A-6 intruder destroyed that engine as well, and that helmet is just a few pounds of fiberglass and plastic. Granted the Dreamliner engine appeared to only be running at ground idle (since it was stationary on the tarmac) and since the Intruder was preparing for a cat shot it may have have been running up or at full power, which would make a difference but I don't remember and it may have also could have been getting hooked up and only at idle and engine RPM would certainly be a factor in the damage on both incidents.

    • @ata38-30
      @ata38-30 Месяц назад +2

      I second your comment! Engineer thinks one way, mechanic thinks another, there's hope in that being overhauled. Also, from a lessor's or owner's standpoint, I don't think they would want to write that as a total loss.

    • @UncleKennysPlace
      @UncleKennysPlace Месяц назад +5

      I worked in certification at GE for a couple of decades until recently retiring. A bag of bolts that can fit in your pocket can trash an engine.
      (So don't leave a bag of bolts anywhere near the intake when the engine is on the test stand.)
      Yeah, there will be salvageable parts, but in today's world, they'll discard anything even a little "iffy".

    • @Synergy7Studios
      @Synergy7Studios Месяц назад +1

      @@UncleKennysPlace fair point. We actually had a few screws get sucked in at our maintenance facility recently, but it just needed some inlet repairs and a few new fan blades. The core was fine, thankfully. I assume they boroscoped every stage. It was on a 757.

    • @Synergy7Studios
      @Synergy7Studios Месяц назад +1

      @@larrybremer4930 hadn't thought about the shafts being out of true, that could cause bearing and bearing mount damage too.

  • @toma5153
    @toma5153 Месяц назад +9

    Your video did a great job of explaining this. Keep up the good work.

  • @Tim.NavVet.EN2
    @Tim.NavVet.EN2 Месяц назад +1

    I remember when the containers had doors/curtains on both sides and they would drive them around with Both sides fully open (when empty) to help prevent this from happening..... (i.e. extremely high resistance to jet (and propeller) blast!)
    AND Thank You for the quick explanation .vs. a 15 to 25 minute explanation!!!

  • @the_original_landcruisers
    @the_original_landcruisers Месяц назад +2

    You did a great job showing the incident and explaining the contributing circumstances. Keep it up.

  • @fizzys26
    @fizzys26 Месяц назад +16

    I’ve never understood people taking those kinds of risks driving around aircraft. My philosophy was always hey, if I’m stuck waiting because of a plane, too bad. You can’t win going up against an airplane.

    • @trilight3597
      @trilight3597 Месяц назад

      Not sure. Trailer trucks beats car. Trains beats trailer. Yield to planes and I don't want to a see plane vs train.

    • @OOpSjm
      @OOpSjm Месяц назад

      They aren't driving around aircraft. They are driving down the internal service road.

    • @kgb4187
      @kgb4187 Месяц назад +1

      Complacency kills. I used to work for Brinks Air Courier division, my driver went in front of an MD-11 as it was going on a taxi way one morning.

  • @tomnugent505
    @tomnugent505 Месяц назад +1

    I am a retired DOA employee. MTD. This really brings back memories I've been gone for 12 years thanks for your post

  • @koryteuscher7709
    @koryteuscher7709 Месяц назад +4

    Looking at this incident from a safety/risk accessment perspective there is usually multiple factors that when crossed especially in aviation that can lead to an accident/incident. # 1 as stated in comments there was a lack for situational awareness . Crossing behind a heavy is a recipe for disaster. There is enough jet blast to send everything including the containers flying. Most LD3 transports that i have seen do have some slack with the clamps to hold down the containers and with jet blast from a heavy i believe it is beyond what those to clamps are designed / intended to hold. # 2 haste to meet a deadline for baggage perfomance goal may be a factor as others have mentioned , compeling the driver to take a risk that is not safe nor recommended. # 3 maybe there is an issue with the layout and design of the airport around that and other issues compelling individuals to take risks that are not safe. On the map shown that area is a known hot spot. I am surprised there is a surface road crossing a movement area / taxiway. Are there tunnels there that can help to minimize / prevent taxiway incursions and provide a safe path to cross underneath. Where i work there are tunnels to cross underneath taxiways so aircraft and ramp traffic are separate near movement areas. Maybe this incident can lead to a redesign of the areas there to control the risk associated with the taxiway crossing there and some eduation in situational awareness training to prevent the multiple factors from coelesing into another incident in that area

  • @billbozeman
    @billbozeman Месяц назад +3

    Kindly pardon if this has already been mentioned but the AKEs on those dollies, although light in comparison to others, would NOT have become free if the locks had been properly secured.
    This is one of those safety violations that everyone ignores until something like THIS occurs then everyone claims they would never allow it to take place.
    I saw it take place countless times at MEM (FedEx) and have no doubt it takes place at every other airport unless it’s noted that SAFETY is in the area.
    More so civilian than military.
    That’s simply fact.
    The equipment used for these containers (cans) hasn’t changed for decades and until forced to do so will remain as it current is.
    Solar powered LEDs (red/green) connected to proximity switches would literally cost less than $5 per dolly but who wants to do that when you could simply buy a $30 million engine every once in a while.🙄
    Whatever saves money is inevitably what gets approved and in this case NOTHING is the cheapest option.
    They’ll blame the tug driver because, according to protocol, THEY were the one responsible.
    As long as the large corporations have a SOP they can point to and place the blame on an individual, as opposed to their SOP itself (which functions more efficiently when the SOP is NOT followed), they will sit back and say “Not our fault”.

  • @richardvervoorn6626
    @richardvervoorn6626 Месяц назад +1

    Well done, it’s not often we see a catastrophic incident such as this. It could have been much worse with the debris flying around like that, you’ve done a pretty good job explaining some of the details👍

  • @cherylreichardt
    @cherylreichardt Месяц назад +2

    Thanks for the detailed account info of the incident. Few years back at O'Hare during a blizzard, a China Airlines Cargo Queen injested a luggage cart!

  • @garrettdavis9416
    @garrettdavis9416 Месяц назад +11

    I think people are VASLY underrating the possibility that the locks were either inop or (more likely) not fully engaged on the dollies. Considering the containers were all empty, I think it is highly likely that there was a slippage of safety standards (based on my own time on the ramp). Also notice that the AKE on Tug 1 is not closed, and the bulk cart on cart 2 are not closed.

    • @davidsmiths5471
      @davidsmiths5471 Месяц назад

      So who trains any body to drive behind any aircraft that has engines running!

  • @LMays-cu2hp
    @LMays-cu2hp Месяц назад +1

    Thank you for sharing this incident. I hope no one was hurt here!😮

  • @nickiehaflinger
    @nickiehaflinger Месяц назад

    This was very interesting. Thanks for all your efforts to put this together.

  • @mattc.310
    @mattc.310 Месяц назад

    Thanks for the upload. Clear explanation of what happened and what usually goes on with the ground equipment.

  • @adamzangara
    @adamzangara Месяц назад +3

    I was always way too nervous to drive my tug behind any aircraft at Hartsfield and I'm glad I never did. That so would've been my luck.

  • @vanstry
    @vanstry Месяц назад +12

    I was in air plane not long ago where they literally locked up the wheels while taxiing because a food services truck CUT OFF the aircraft! They need to be a little bit better about who they're hiring.

    • @rona4960
      @rona4960 Месяц назад +6

      Who they hire is as irrelevant as you. The proper training and adhering to the training is the important thing

    • @lolbots
      @lolbots Месяц назад +4

      DEI

    • @neilpatrickhairless
      @neilpatrickhairless Месяц назад +2

      Knew someone was going to say "DEI" when you can just say "I'm racist and sexist"

  • @thaiexodus2916
    @thaiexodus2916 Месяц назад +12

    To correct you a little. Yes, the fan blades will have to be changed. But the entire engine will have to be torn down and entirely rebuilt. FOD can have entered every part of the engine. After a complete inspection it will have to be balance checked and re-balanced from turbine blades forwards. Just imagine if one of the three central shafts were bent or even slightly unbalanced. Only one way to determine: tear it down to the last nut, bolt and retaining wire. Neither GE or R-R will stand behind anything less.

    • @justincaldarella
      @justincaldarella Месяц назад +4

      A bird strike can render an engine unrepairable. That engine is done, they will not repair it. It will be an insurance write-off.

    • @elevatorcentral
      @elevatorcentral Месяц назад +3

      @@justincaldarella more like chicago or the ground handling company will be buying american a new engine

    • @thaiexodus2916
      @thaiexodus2916 Месяц назад +4

      @@justincaldarella Definitely. I was just looking at it from an engineers perspective. It's an insurance write off and will be parted out. Still has a couple million $$$ in parts.
      The way things are going at Boeing the cowling may be gracing one of their upcoming trash piles.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +2

      ​@@elevatorcentralit was an American tug, dollies, and Iberia AKE containers. They're lucky in the sense that it all happened "in-house," so to speak, and can be handled internally between the airline and their own insurance.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +1

      Awesome, thank you for explaining.

  • @culcune
    @culcune Месяц назад +4

    I was pleasantly surprised the news did not insinuate that this was somehow Boeing's fault.

  • @richardvervoorn6626
    @richardvervoorn6626 Месяц назад

    Well done, this was very interesting to review. Modern airports seem to be busy beyond the point where the traffic therein can be operated without incident. Recently there was a collision between 2 jets on the ground while taxi-ing prior to departure. I’m constantly hearing about substandard performance on the part of ATC’s and ground controllers. Now being on the ground as well as in the air will cause nervous fliers more grief, moving forward…

  • @Mike_Engel
    @Mike_Engel Месяц назад +12

    For once someone that knows what they are talking about.... those containers have 2 sets of locks. 1 locks the container on the dolly to keep moving side to side... the other one keeps the container from being blown off (When these locks are spring loaded so no one really checks them.

  • @59tothegrave4eva
    @59tothegrave4eva 27 дней назад +1

    lmao i was on that flight, lefthand side on a wing seat, it was a layover for me in chicago from london, i connected to this flight from madrid, its surreal seeing a plane i was in on camera on social media

  • @dantracy621
    @dantracy621 Месяц назад +2

    Well done. A little wordy, IMO, but well done. Most will not recognize that the A350 blew the containers off with 100+ mph jet blast, as at the point where the containers are flying the A350 has begun to move forward. Break away thrust can be 150 mph. Maybe more. It is for this reason we never ask pilots of large, heavy jets to “expedite” or “taxi without delay.” People have died in similar situations here at ORD as a result.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад

      Definitely a little wordy - I did this off the top of my head without a script. If I do another one of these, I'm changing that. I had so many people asking me what happened that I got tired of typing it out, so I made a video to explain it to them and then decided to upload said video 😆
      And thank you for the additional info. When I was a ramp controller, I often used the phrase "minimum breakaway thrust" on the frequency when guiding departing aircraft out off the ramp because we had so much activity behind them, we had to take every possible precaution to deal with the horrible layout of the Lima Alley.

  • @shadowblade232
    @shadowblade232 Месяц назад +1

    Hello, I'm from the future, this literally happened again in the same spot to another (JetBlue?) flight a few days later lmao 😅

  • @cojaxart8986
    @cojaxart8986 Месяц назад

    Great reporting! Thanks for the good work!

  • @lemme999
    @lemme999 21 день назад +1

    Working at O’Hare 30+ years, I’ve personally seen many situations (aircraft strikes, Mother Nature, vehicle accidents, etc..) Even after years of experience, it’s a dangerous situation driving around the airfield but many incidents are avoidable.

  • @JLange642
    @JLange642 Месяц назад +10

    It was more an issue of the jet blast of the Air France plane causing the problem than anything else. Plus- those containers were NOT secured to the carts in any way- the carts didn't even tip, the containers blew right off.

    • @davecarpenter4917
      @davecarpenter4917 Месяц назад +3

      Good catch, ya the carts look like they're just doin fine.

    • @lou1502
      @lou1502 Месяц назад

      Yes something was wrong with the dolly's the locks should of been able to hold them. If the locks are not set the cans would of fell off at his first turn. I would say he used the wrong dolly's for the equipment he was using.

  • @AlienGamer44
    @AlienGamer44 Месяц назад +1

    As A AP Mechanic for United that's going to be a whole Engine Replacement depending what The inside looks like

  • @elliotolsen8412
    @elliotolsen8412 Месяц назад +13

    5:32 your smoke detector battery is low

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +12

      Betrayed by the ceiling 🦗 literally started beeping as soon as I started recording this. All is well, a new 9V battery has been procured and installed 😆

    • @garyb6219
      @garyb6219 Месяц назад +3

      Good catch! Dang!

    • @jemez_mtn
      @jemez_mtn Месяц назад +3

      I thought that was mine 😅

  • @jsmithepa
    @jsmithepa Месяц назад +1

    If the ramp is unionized, there is a fair chance for correction. If they are on temporary contracts, they would be subject to the wimp of hurried up management. Fortunately this time is only containers and an engine, no sucky human fresh.

  • @Matt.Thompson.1976
    @Matt.Thompson.1976 Месяц назад

    I had not heard about this yet, thank you.

  • @catherinemorris908
    @catherinemorris908 Месяц назад

    Excellent video and narration.

  • @rael5469
    @rael5469 Месяц назад +1

    What's amazing is that the containers that didn't get ingested continued down the taxiway where they possibly could have hit another vehicle.

  • @reverdywinfree3758
    @reverdywinfree3758 Месяц назад +2

    Excellent breakdown!

  • @PaddyOFlange
    @PaddyOFlange Месяц назад +8

    During a parts shortage with long repair and maintenance times. Oof

  • @kalvinnoble488
    @kalvinnoble488 Месяц назад +2

    Did the cargo tug require Ground Control permission to proceed across that taxiway between two operating aircraft?

    • @lou1502
      @lou1502 Месяц назад

      No it is a active roadway to the cargo building, he was headed to the tunnel that goes under the runways.

  • @jeffpeterson4978
    @jeffpeterson4978 Месяц назад +1

    Was there any damage to the aircraft too? Looks as if part of the container may have flown up into the side of the fuselage.

  • @herbbenson6884
    @herbbenson6884 21 день назад

    Very informative. Thank you.

  • @Southwest_923WR
    @Southwest_923WR Месяц назад +2

    Bad judgement on driver,ergo; JOB OPENING!
    Thanks for shareing, I was waiting on somebody to show video!
    Excellent commentary also!👍🏿

  • @Chinemeremdozie
    @Chinemeremdozie Месяц назад +1

    Have not watched your videos since 2015 nice video

  • @Greatdome99
    @Greatdome99 Месяц назад +6

    The engine compressor blades are a much smaller diameter than the fan you see. I suspect most of the debris shot out around the engine, not thru it. The nose cowl suffered a lot of damage but I'm sure the engine can be rebuilt.

    • @rayclark7963
      @rayclark7963 Месяц назад +2

      Yea OK. Its JUNK. Dye penetrant test every piece in that engine, a rebuild would 2x the cost.

    • @itjustlookslikethis
      @itjustlookslikethis Месяц назад +2

      Engine is junk.

    • @Roboseal2
      @Roboseal2 Месяц назад +2

      Engine is junk. Everything got ruined. Small bits got into the core and good lucky cleaning that up. You can’t rebuild a damaged jet engine, it’s not that simple as you obviously think.

    • @5695q
      @5695q Месяц назад

      @@Roboseal2 obviously the fan is scrap, but the core can be rebuilt depending on severity and extent of damage. The rotors and stators have limits, and the nicks can be blended out if the damage is within those limits. There is an arbitrary line though where cost outweighs the benefit.

    • @Roboseal2
      @Roboseal2 Месяц назад

      @@zachgarner853 If this is credible, (We have no way to tell), should be updated and put onto the incident log on Aviation Herald

  • @theunknowntxter1873
    @theunknowntxter1873 28 дней назад +1

    Excellent video! WOW! You could Really see all that happened! One quick ?, why wasn’t the driver sucked in too? Or are these things remotely operated? In any event, awesome job with the video! 😊

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  28 дней назад +1

      @theunknowntxter1873 the driver was in the tug, which protected him. He got lucky. It also appears the Air France A350 just happened to add power just as or after the tug had cleared its engines, but the empty AKEs weren't so lucky.

  • @52robbo
    @52robbo Месяц назад

    Excellent and very informative video; thanks very much. Amazing and frightening how strong those engines are - how much ‘suck’ they have! Thanks very much indeed for sharing.

  • @jimonthecoast3234
    @jimonthecoast3234 Месяц назад +1

    did you notice the tail was missing on the aircraft above the road on your map image...
    very interestign I like this tpe

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад

      @jimonthecoast3234 Yeah, just got cut off during the camera pass. It happens. I use Google Maps a lot for work and often notice buses, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships cut off. Most of the Google Maps aerial imagery over populated areas is done from prop planes, not really by satellite.

  • @jordansoflylogs8526
    @jordansoflylogs8526 Месяц назад +1

    An 9 hour engine swap she'll be back in action luckily it's a maintenance hub for American they have the ability to swap engines at O'Hare if they have it on hand ...-former Aviation Systems Tech based at O'Hare for American

  • @HoldTheLine1990
    @HoldTheLine1990 Месяц назад +4

    The tug driver should start playing Corn Hole, horseshoes or mini golf.
    Seriously, how many times a day does a tug driver with carts do just this task?
    Countless.
    Policy changes coming now and more miss connection for luggage.
    This may fall under a condition called Normalization of Deviance.

  • @pomerau
    @pomerau Месяц назад +2

    Imagine sitting in a right window seat and seeing that large piece coming over the wing @ 5:00 and smacking against a few windows further back. Maybe it wasn't metal but the size of that piece would make it seem your number is suddenly up while stationary on a taxiway.

    • @GordonSkinner
      @GordonSkinner Месяц назад +1

      We was sitting in row 16 by the window, I saw the engine shake and make a lot if noise, then something came flying out and hit our window. Made a bit of noise and did startle passengers around us. The window was marked - we made sure the crew were aware of that when we alighted some 70 minutes later.

    • @pomerau
      @pomerau Месяц назад

      @@GordonSkinner Very interesting. Thank you both. I guess it was gone before any panic could set in. The crew up front shut the engine down promptly.
      I wondered if they announced anything or came back to look out. A mark on the window as well. Stay safe. I hope your journey wasn't badly affected other than the 3 hour delay etc.

  • @malps420
    @malps420 Месяц назад +1

    As an ORD airport employee myself, I witnessed an American Airlines employees lose 4 of these containers in the wind less than a week before this incident. I am not sure if it is an issue with their dollies (the platforms with wheels that you load the containers on) as they look incredibly cheap and flimsy compared to other airlines' equipment or if it is simply negligence from employees refusing to make sure their load is secured. Either way, that driver shouldn't have crossed the double taxiway with the A350 right there as you're supposed to give extra room to widebody aircraft to accomodate their massive engines and the crazy thrust they make even at idle power.

    • @RichardCurry-z1e
      @RichardCurry-z1e Месяц назад

      How is it that ORD ramp workers or aircraft/airline employees have special access to locations on airport property, between runways, at runway thresholds, etc. that the typical taxpayer and patron of the airport don't have access to, for plane spotting, YT channel content creation, etc? No one wants to answer the basic question about how a person can watch aircraft operations when we can't even park out on Irving Park Road or Mannheim Road to watch aircraft operations from a great distance? Does the ATC/FAA Tower folk approve of such dangerous filming locations? Are they even consulted? It's one thing to have a camera stationed on the roof of an adjacent business across the street from Midway Airport to capture runway and ramp action, but this stuff at O'Hare is over the top. Contrary to other large cities and their airports, the City of Chicago would rather prosecute aviation hobbyists than provide a safe parking area to view airport action.

    • @malps420
      @malps420 Месяц назад

      @@RichardCurry-z1e I wouldn't know much about that, sorry. If I ever do record anything, I will film it from the ramp itself. I am not familiar with prosecution of aviation hobbyists taking photos/videos of air traffic or the random film locations that other employees may use.

    • @malps420
      @malps420 Месяц назад

      @@RichardCurry-z1e Also I'd like to add that my airline does not allow us to cross any sort of taxiway or runway. We are only allowed to use the service roads but I can't speak for other categories of employees here.

    • @RichardCurry-z1e
      @RichardCurry-z1e Месяц назад

      @@malps420 Appreciate your airline rule adherence, but the tug in this video was on a so called service road that crossed a live taxiway. You can do damage by driving poorly right on the ramp, let alone the service roads, many of which are under grade level, tunneled, etc. Why aren't ramp drivers patched in to the ATC ground control frequencies so they can be guided by the people upstairs in the towers? Who is to blame for the bad decisions involved in the incident here?

    • @malps420
      @malps420 Месяц назад

      @@RichardCurry-z1e Yes, I will acknowledge that this was one of the rare taxiway crossings for the service roads that we drive on. I don't think that it is necessary to be guided by the controllers upstairs as all employees are required to give way or give priority to aircraft taxiing. In this instance, there were several factors to cause this result and a lot of it is still speculation because not all the details have came out yet.
      Firstly, we have no idea if the containers themselves were properly secured on the dollies. My airlines' dollies are very secure and even wind wouldn't have been able to knock them off if that was the case.
      Secondly, there was another heavy aircraft in front of the taxiway that the tractor was driving through. In my opinion, I don't think that he should've crossed the taxiway while being sandwiched between two widebodies as we are supposed to give MUCH more space to widebodies as their engines are significantly larger and produce much more jet blast than your typical 737.
      If the containers were secured, this could be blamed on the airline's use of unsafe equipment that obviously fail easily, but there's a chance that it could've also been employee negligence if they were not secured. Hope this helps!

  • @microdesigns2000
    @microdesigns2000 Месяц назад +2

    I lived in Chicago for 35 years. EVERY time I flew out of or into O'Hare, my suitcase was damaged, broken plastics, unnecessary scuffs and stains, beat up. They don't give a shit, at all. They walk around smugly like they own the place. The least they could do is the act like they care.
    In this video the oblivious driver doesn't know they have empties?

    • @lou1502
      @lou1502 Месяц назад +1

      Blame the manufacturers not the handlers to many doodads on the luggage and they are making them cheaper and cheaper.

  • @jfmezei
    @jfmezei Месяц назад

    Question: say the AA pilot had been very attentive and seen first container start to be blown off the cart and pressed the big red buttom "emergency engine stop" (f such exists). Would it have made any difference to engine damage? I know engines take forever to stop spinning, but curious if it is a logarithmic curve where thrust drops very fast, followed by long spin down without appreciable thrust, or whether it is more linear.

    • @shaark92
      @shaark92 Месяц назад

      wasn't in the cockpit, so that's my first alibi ... but they were about to start moving again because AF ahead was starting ... so clearly there should have been a higher level of awareness prior to resuming taxi than when they were stopped.
      ... I've thought the same thing, though. The fan wouldn't be stopped, but I think it wouldn't have sucked the container into the inlet. The container would probably have still struck the cowl.
      The damage isn't on the pilot(s) but it seems, if the video segment plays in real time, the speed of the fan could have been reduced to avoid ingestion.
      Taxing, especially at ORD, is one of the most challenging/threatening parts of the job. I've done it for AA since '98.

  • @toodlepop
    @toodlepop Месяц назад +1

    jet engines, and many other things that produce huge amounts of energy (relative to myself) give me an almost primordial sense of fear. like..."do not go near that thing."

  • @MrBeckster007
    @MrBeckster007 Месяц назад +1

    What a unlucky chain of events that made this costly repair.

  • @Pepo-1969
    @Pepo-1969 Месяц назад +1

    Don't know why anyone would pass between two "live" acfts. 😮

  • @mipmipmipmipmip-v5x
    @mipmipmipmipmip-v5x Месяц назад +1

    The engine shell held up excellently. Passengers could have been in danger!

  • @glenndaley141
    @glenndaley141 13 дней назад

    Many years ago, I spent a night in a terminal at O'Hare between flights, and was entertained by a homeless gentleman telling his life story. He said he was homeless because unemployed, and unemployed because of a ramp incident. Apparently an 11 year veteran of working the ramp, he noticed a serious safety violation near a plane he was not responsible for, and urgently pointed it out. He was canned for not paying attention to his own plane, and the person in charge of the other plane's ramp crew was defensive of his own authority. Anyway, something did happen, and they had to pull that plane for inspection. I don't know how much of that to believe, but it seems possible .

  • @Resiprocity1
    @Resiprocity1 26 дней назад +1

    Worked for a PHX based airline in late 80’s, early 90’s. This type of thing happens regularly, conx bags sitting on a belt loader parked too close to the ingestion zone and all kinds of other FOD. Worst was the metal coupler on the end of the hose of an A/C cart that destroyed the #2 engine on a 757 while taxing up the j-line.

  • @maxenielsen
    @maxenielsen Месяц назад

    Great video! Thanks!

  • @sugboskyaviation
    @sugboskyaviation Месяц назад +3

    A350: oops (smirking)

  • @soar2newheight657
    @soar2newheight657 Месяц назад

    Great synopsis!

  • @ghostrider-be9ek
    @ghostrider-be9ek Месяц назад +1

    Difference between narrow body and wide body - the tug driver MIGHT have gotten away if it was a A320, but a Heavy is a huge NO NO to go behind even at idle thrust - ESP with empty LD4s

  • @victorialawhon2251
    @victorialawhon2251 Месяц назад +1

    I thought it was going to be a person. Thank goodness it wasn't
    Thanks for the explanation!

  • @nelsonbrandt7847
    @nelsonbrandt7847 Месяц назад

    Great video. Thanks for sharing.

  • @kauaihawaii5836
    @kauaihawaii5836 Месяц назад +5

    Wow. People on the plane must have been pissed

    • @MrTurboCowboy
      @MrTurboCowboy Месяц назад +4

      The plane was arriving not departing. It did take 45 minutes after it happened for them to get to there gate and finally get off

    • @davecarpenter4917
      @davecarpenter4917 Месяц назад +1

      My nicotine anger level would be creeping up as they follow thru on the spot. So close and yet so far..

    • @macking104
      @macking104 Месяц назад +1

      The folks on the next flight were probably upset…

    • @RossNixon
      @RossNixon Месяц назад +1

      @@macking104 Yes, taking off with only one working engine could make some of them nervous 😁

    • @poppyrowland1385
      @poppyrowland1385 Месяц назад

      @@MrTurboCowboyTHEIR

  • @andywomack3414
    @andywomack3414 Месяц назад

    Any system that relies on a single human's good judgement, attention to detail and perfection is bound to have accidents. That this sort of incident isn't more common reflects positively on the training of airport ground employees. Hopefully this is a learning experience and results in improvements to that training as well as better coordination between movements on the ground of vehicles and aircraft.

  • @johnnyrocket80085
    @johnnyrocket80085 24 дня назад

    Tug man, YOU ARE FIRED!!

  • @gerrycarmichael1391
    @gerrycarmichael1391 Месяц назад +1

    I wonder if that was annunciated or un-unannunciated?

  • @SKIPWOOD-UA777CAPT
    @SKIPWOOD-UA777CAPT Месяц назад +1

    the daily cost for airlines due to ramp rash is astronomical....

  • @trespire
    @trespire 27 дней назад

    The engine will undoubtably undergo a full rebuild.
    Q : Are those luggage containers ever tied down to the cart, or are they just placed without any tiedown straps / securing locks ?

  • @wizardm
    @wizardm Месяц назад

    One problem here is that for crossing ground traffic the holding points are not at save positions. It should not happen that the distance of stopped planes to crossing vehicles is within jet blast range.

  • @javacup912
    @javacup912 Месяц назад +6

    That engine is at least $50M-$60M, so costly. But knowing how airport employees get distracted by things that shouldn’t be a factor. Timing, is not a very smart solution. It’s the only place I know where vehicles cross active taxiway right on front of airplanes. And this is an airport design.

    • @Erik-R
      @Erik-R Месяц назад +2

      It's a GE GEnx-1B engine, which has (had) a list price of $25 million

    • @CruceEntertainment
      @CruceEntertainment Месяц назад +1

      Yeah it’s “only” $25 million!

    • @Roboseal2
      @Roboseal2 Месяц назад

      I think he means the lifespan and overhauls and repairs of the engine over time would add up to 65mil

    • @cruisinguy6024
      @cruisinguy6024 Месяц назад

      The engine costs less than half that for the full list price, but these are leased engines. It'll be sent off to GE for a full repair and eventually be returned to service and the aircraft here will get a replacement engine.

    • @carlnordstrom7533
      @carlnordstrom7533 Месяц назад

      Don't go by the articles when customers take delivery of aircraft, i.e. the engine order value. Sales of installed engines are heavily discounted. I would bet javacup is closer than the $25M number, if they scrap this engine (not a given) then the insurance will purchase a spare at list price or close to it.

  • @ricklowers8873
    @ricklowers8873 Месяц назад +1

    Any report of damage to any aircraft behind the 787? Specifically the biz jet immediately behind the 787. Kinda looked like one of the bins was heading their direction. It’s a helpless feeling to be stuck in place on a taxiway & watch fod like that heading towards you!

  • @FeeNixBeech
    @FeeNixBeech 13 дней назад +1

    Someone is having a very bad day. Someone else is having a great sales day. XD

  • @JamesAllmond
    @JamesAllmond Месяц назад +1

    Interesting, something like this happened to a WestJet 787 at Gatwick last year.
    I know this because my motorcycle showed up in Toronto 3 days after me, because they were down 1 787 and my bike had to wait... Apparently not that uncommon...

  • @rudehr
    @rudehr Месяц назад +2

    Never stand close behind a horse.

  • @TheBanhagel
    @TheBanhagel Месяц назад

    Nice review, was there any discussion on radio from the pilot you could have sync'd it with the event as we were watching

  • @nascar2010j24
    @nascar2010j24 Месяц назад

    The cost of a fan blade is roughly $50,000 to $60,000. Also, the number one rule is not to be traveling behind or in front of an aircraft when the navigation lights are lit

  • @TripleZ89
    @TripleZ89 Месяц назад +13

    "Try to keep this brief" and continues to go for over 9 minutes. You're lucky I'm pantsless snacking on sweets with nothing better to do!! 😂😂😂

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  Месяц назад +13

      I was also pantsless when I made this, now I'm waiting on a 🍕 delivery.

    • @memyself7419
      @memyself7419 Месяц назад

      ​@@ChicagoAirportSpotter Haha

  • @stratochief99
    @stratochief99 Месяц назад +2

    Welp...needless to say, that driver no longer has a job.

  • @65gtotrips
    @65gtotrips Месяц назад

    This may sound stupid to ya’ll, but why can’t there be a grid aka screening at the fan inlet ? I mean why would it hinder the airflow so much ? Like 2” x 2” animal type mesh or something.

  • @michaelkirch5597
    @michaelkirch5597 Месяц назад

    Is there a specific reason the AKEs aren't secured to the trailer while in tow to prevent this situation? At least they would stay attached to the tug and trailers in this kind of situation.

  • @Sailor376also
    @Sailor376also Месяц назад +3

    The nacelle and and protection shield,, damaged,, more than just the engine.

  • @flyingsteel
    @flyingsteel 22 дня назад +1

    The aircraft is back in service. I don’t know if the engine was replaced or not.

    • @ChicagoAirportSpotter
      @ChicagoAirportSpotter  22 дня назад

      @flyingsteel Thanks for the update - I was just talking to someone about this about 15 minutes ago. Looks like it was only AOG for about a week.

  • @UncleKennysPlace
    @UncleKennysPlace Месяц назад

    As American tends to use 787s powered by the GEnx-1B engine (I was involved in the certification process!), in the event of a total destruction of the engine, the cost of repairing that plane will be in the tens of millions of dollars. We test the fan blades against birds, but not against giant aluminum cans.

  • @Sandra-dt4ec
    @Sandra-dt4ec Месяц назад

    The cost of the aircraft's down time and replacement for all scheduled flights, storage, and engine replacement because it will be less costly to wait till it is repaired, and if I am correct, American does not do primary maintenance at Chicago. That's a lot of money someone is going to have to pay.

  • @Rick_Foley
    @Rick_Foley Месяц назад +1

    This is actually a fairly cheap engine failure, (excluding the high replacement cost) since no engineering labor will be expended on a lengthy failure analysis or root cause investigation. Also, negative on the rebuild and/or using any parts as spares, because lawyers.