Dude.... Don't get me started on vertical videos. I hate them with a passion. I wish RUclips had a filter or something to prevent people from uploading vertical videos. Maybe then they'll get the message. :-)
@@patrickmitchell6968 I hate them too, I work as a video operator and I am responsible for camera cut, recording and big projection surfaces like extra powerful projectors and LED walls. Its totally ruining my work if some of the contents is in low res or obscure and unusable aspect ratio formats. Eg you have a nice screen that is 4k or more and you are palying crappy content that uses one thirf of width at its best...and the customer wants to fill in the unused part of the screen with blurred and resized original clip.
One of the injuries in the Netherlands was unfortunately a child who picked up a piece of the engine and burned his hand, so that's another reason not to touch any engine parts that fall from the sky.
The amount of knowledge he has about so many aspects of aviation and this incident is impressive. Right down to the manufacturing process of the blades, what happened on board in related incidents, the blade inspection process. After a video like this, mainstream coverage of this incident is a joke, just sensationalism.
@@MentourPilot whatever the research, producing this level of content requires a lot of different aspects to be a really high level. I'm only mildly interested aviation but watch almost all of your videos because you deliver the information in such an engaging way. As well as any other channel across many different topics I'm interested in...thanks for opening up such a complex technical subject 👍
In 25 years of being a machinist and engine builder. I can say that even brand new engines built perfectly and to the check list can experience failures of material. Ive seen forged connecting rods have a catastrophic failure at idle only being in the motor for 4 hours.
@@SkyrimCZtutorials Fair - I'm basing that on my own observations having flown a lot for business. Essentially, if the general public doesn't even know what kind of airplane they're flying on, how would they even know who made the engines? Or that multiple engine options exist? They see something like this, they blame Boeing. Assuming they get the manufacturer right. I get a chuckle when the major news networks talk about Airbus 737s.
@@Midcon77 Generally that's fair, though it does get a bit more murky with engine exclusivity deals. With the likes of the GE90 on the 777 LR, W and X or the CFM family on 737NG and beyond, then even if the engine is at fault, since there is no alternative, the airframe package has to deal with those consequences. After all, part of the reason those exclusivity arrangements exist is that it makes it easier for the manufacturer to optimise their aircraft if they know it is only going to be fitting one engine type. That was part of Boeing's justification for no alternatives on newer 777 variants, despite the wishes of some existing 777 customers wanting to have greater commonality with their existing fleets.
Well to be fair... Today I Found Out that airliners can have different engines as per request of the airline xD Not that I blamed Boeing for this. Their MAX problem, definitely Boeing... but not this.
@@BrySkye Agreed. Boeing didn't build the engine though, and that's my main point - the general public sees all these videos of the 777 with a blown engine and they immediately will jump to the conclusion that the Boeing Airbus 747-150 is a death trap because the engines explode on takeoff. Those of us who are enthusiasts or in the industry know better, and I'm just glad Mentour pointed it out. Boeing builds the airframe, not the engine, and in the cases documented here, the airframe did just fine. The engines did not. That said, who designs/builds the cowling? I honestly don't know - would P&W have built that cowling? Does Boeing build it to P&W's specs? The cowling is supposed to contain at least one blade separation but it doesn't appear that happened here with that one shot of the fuselage puncture?
I appreciate you pointing out that the air frame and the engines are two different things. Popular think is "I bought a Ford so the motor is Ford" :-) This was a good one, thank you.
Not only that but if you touch or move anything they deem material to their investigations, you could be brought up on evidence tampering, obstruction, or other charges. Leave the stuff alone, don't touch it, and call law enforcement.
@@ianmontgomery7534 In pretty much all realistic cases probably yes, in general, choosing the least disastrous option is roughly aligned with the best available option.
the Maastricht incident was in the Netherlands. In the Dutch language that is 'Nederland'. If you look on the map at 6:38 you see that if the incident in Denver had occurred a little later the aircraft would have been over a town called Nederland. There are some weird coincidences in life
Check out all the Hanovers and Hannover or even Kalifornien, not the state California, but the beach Kalifornien on the baltic shore of Germany. So some from Nederland has moved quite early and called the new settlement "nederland" like in so many other cases. Sometimes those city names evolved and left the historical spelling behind and went to the english for example Braunschweig as the origin which had later become the english Brunswick or even New Brunswick. And then you find the different spellings as in Hannover and Hanover ...
@@typxxilps yes, but having 2 engine failures within 1 day, with the same P&W4000 engine, is a very rare coincidence. Now, off all the places in the world, this happening above similar named places, makes it so much more rare.
Mentour: I’m a retired military air traffic controller. Granted it was years ago but I was taught to not ask an aircraft to make turns into a dead engine. So I would have automatically issued left turn radar vectors to this aircraft. Only if the pilot was okay with right turns would I have issued right turns.
I believe another aviation channel on RUclips said the same thing as you (Captain Joe? or maybe it was someone else, but it was a pilot's channel). I have no idea and find this fascinating. I did note that the ATC very pointedly asked the pilot which way he wanted to turn.
@@alix5704 Yes, Captain Joe mentioned the same thing. I believe he said twin-propeller pilots get taught this and that it's possible the pilots remembered it from their training. IIRC the reason is that it can be harder to get back out of the turn. But same as Mentour he also said they still should be able to turn in both directions just fine and it's just a precaution or something. From other comments, it seems that in this case, it was probably because it's a fixed procedure at that airport.
I think there was a discussion (or rather argument) about this on AVherald. The comment there that made the most sense was someone who explained that this is a thing wrt twin propellers, and especially low-powered airplanes/planes flying slowly. In my non-pilot, bad-at-mechanical-physics, brain I understood the problem with turning into a dead engine at low speed to be that you risk losing lift over that wing. And since all pilots start in small planes that fly sort of slow this "don't turn into dead engine" gets ingrained very early. But it only really matters in small and slow planes, but there it can be a life or death thing.
@@GerardMenvussa Good question. If I understood the conversation at AVHerald correctly, it probably wouldn't. Because the issue would be speed and lift. And if you still had one engine on the dead side, that shouldn't be an issue. But I'd love for someone who actually knows something to answer this.
@@ERIK31351 Because it’s a Boeing aircraft: they put together all the parts, and chose these engines to be installed. You can’t just “pass the buck”. e.g. you buy a brand new suv, and two weeks later, they brakes fail, and a bad accident occurs. The automobile manufacturer denies any responsibility, because the failed brakelines were made in taiwan. Do you think that would hold up in court? Someone has to be held accountable…and imo that would be the manufacturer of the aircraft who installed these engines in the bird
These Videos have become SUCH a high quality... I kind of have to check wether I‘m really on RUclips again and again 😅😅😅. They are amazing, you are doing such a good job!!!
this isnt such a great idea but if your gonna do it at least dont do it with parts like brackets, blades or god forbid the black boxes, there are already plenty of cases where critical components related to the cause of failure were never able to be found so the issue wasnt able to be nailed down from the incident, the cowling is one thing since its usually more of a casualty than a cause but highly functional or structural parts are worth far more as evidence than in your collection ironically the less damaged a part looks the more important it may be to recover since those are likely the ones that caused the failure or were closely related to the cause
I disagree with your answer to “why only left turns?” In America it’s more common for pilots to graduate up more slowly through planes. On smaller planes multi engine with less rudder authority its much harder to keep it flying straight. In these pilots are taught to prefer turning away from the dead engine so the plane wants to go to straight and level, rather than into It where the plane wants to turn. This is especially key if you are slow, and you may drop below the minimum speed for rudder effectiveness which could send you into a death spiral....
An airline pilot is expected to not drop speed below Vmc. That's what we train extensively for. Whether the plane turns left or right is insignificant because the plane turns by moving the lift vector from vertical to the direction of the turn. The rudder does not turn the plane like a boat, but rather ailerons bank the plane in the direction desired so the wings are lifting in that direction. The over riding issue on this is terrain clearance and the crew is expected to navigate a route established by United policy and procedure.
Dear mister Mentour Pilot. Could you make a video of El Al cargo Boeing 747 flight LY-1862. The plane lost 2 engines after takeoff and crashed 15 kilometers from Schiphol
I really appreciate you answering the thumbnail question in the beginning of the video instead of the end. It motivated me to happily watch the rest of the video!
@HisRoyalHost Maybe, maybe not. United is the largest operator of PW4000-powered 777s, which increases the odds of it happening to one of their airframes. You're not accounting for the Japan Airlines example.
@HisRoyalHost I wasn't talking about the size of the airline. If you operate more of a particularly variant, then if there is an inherent problem with that variant, then you're more likely to be on the receiving end. Like I said, Japan Airlines also suffered a near identical incident with one of its own PW4000 powered 777's. Also, the first United incident happened before Covid led to these aircraft spending more time on the ground, so that can't be considered a completely definitive reason either.
It's ALWAYS Boeing failure at this stage: maintenance of engines is a Boeing duty after delivery, not P&W! Bottom line before airline, before pilots, before passengers, before innocent people at home!
@@MentourPilot I couldn't agree more strongly. Everyone got down okay which is what counts and the flight crews were awesome. But the fact is that Boeing will take hits no matter what. It's the way things are these days. Fair or unfair. I don't like it, but I do recognize it.
@@MentourPilot Thanks for the video but I would add that 2 days [2/18] after the incidents the FAA levied 6 million in fines against Boeing for failure to comply with FAA directives re: cowling failures in 2018.Reported in the WSJ.
Dear mister Mentour Pilot. Could you make a video of El Al cargo Boeing 747 flight LY-1862. The plane lost 2 engines after takeoff and crashed 15 kilometers from Schiphol
A 777 pilot said the engine is attached with a 3-point mounting system. It is designed in such a way that if there is excess vibration, the engine will detach before any structural damage is transmitted to the wing.
Thats is quite a weird design statement. No part of an aircraft will purposely detach, ever. In aero engineering we have such things as preferential modes of failure and damage tolerance, but detaching a 3 ton component on purpose is very absurd. We design the airframe to whitstand quite a bit of vibration from windmilling, both the wing/fuselage and the engine pylons. If something fails is just because it exceeded those limits, not because it was "designed to detach" If you think a little bit, detaching an engine could cause it to hit the stabilizer and making the aircraft uncontrollable
@@chhschwabe I simply stated what this guy said. I do know that he is a 777 pilot. I'm not an engineer and state only what I heard from someone who I consider much more knowledgeable in the area than I. I believe he simply meant that mounts would fail before the wing failed. Planes have flown after an engine has detached. I think that's preferable to having the structure of the wing damaged to an extent that there was risk of losing the wing.
Former LEO in Ohio here....those airplane parts are considered Evidence and no, you cannot keep them. Report it to your local Ohio State patrol who handles downed aircraft in this state. Love this episode!
In the atpl we are taught not to turn into an inoperative engine to prevent loss of control. Since in asymmetric flight your aircraft already wants to turn towards that engine, turning into it only makes it worse and could lead to not being able to exit that turn.
I actually have an aircraft accident site on my property here in Oklahoma. The accident happened in 1939 and all the debris is still on my property. But I did send a letter to the NTSB to make sure the investigation was closed.
Although many youtube videos have started copying you, you are the king and always will be. I cannot express how big of a fan I am of your channel content and your personality.
From the point of view of a passenger, you get something to talk about at the bar for a long time! I was on a flight out of the Philippians a long time ago. DC6 very old at the time. Flying to Taiwan on a Taiwanese owned service. 20 minutes out over the Pacific there was a violent shaking and lots smoke rolled out of an engine. Soon after white smoke (fire suppression.) Prop stopped turning. In broken English the pilot came on and said that due to "technical" difficulties we were returning the the PI. It's worth noting that shortly after take off the stu came around with bowl of hard candies. I didn't want any but she insisted that I crunch on them to help make my ears pop because the plane was too leaky to maintain cabin pressure. On the ground and looking out the cabin window we could see oil running out onto the tarmac. They brought out another engine on a test stand but couldn't get it to start. After unloading passengers they said the flight would resume after some minor repairs. They took a cylinder and piston assembly off each and swapped them. After many tries they got the engine to start. Loaded passengers with the engine running and directed us away from the spinning prop and to the loading ladder. The cowling was not put back on. More hard candy and an uneventful flight to Taiwan. Fond memories of international flying in the good old days.
Thanks, Mentour, I started watching your videos to counter my fear of flying by finding out what's actually going on in those cockpits. Now I'm just watching them for life advise ;)
Question 6: Blancolirio (which flies a 777-300) has posted multiple updates on this, in his first report he identified the "master caution: engine fire" alert from the public audio track and walked through the 777-200/300 action list list for this, as you guessed it does starts with 5 "memory items" (IE things you're supposed to be able to do before even reading the list). Avherald has said that they've been told that both extinguisher bottles had been used. IIRC the memory item for this list says to trigger the first bottle on fire indication, then if it's still indicating a fire 30 seconds later fire the second one. From what we know it seems likely the pilots followed this procedure to the letter.
This guy has incredible knowledge, and has a way of explaining things in which anyone can understand. I absolutely love all his you tubes and have learned so much. I hope that once i start my training for a ppl, i hope i get an instructor that can explain things even half as good as mentour. Keep the good videos coming
@@MentourPilot Captain Joe mentioned in his video about this incident that trainees in flight school are instructed that "it's not recommended to perform turns over the dead engine", but maybe that only applies to twin propeller aircrafts?
Thank you for making it something different. We have some great ones on RUclips already that get it out very quick and try to stay to the facts but don’t really have time to answer very specific questions in their videos. They try to in the comments or other people in the industry will answer if they know the answers. But a video answering some of the most common questions helps put some of the rumors to bed. Good job.
I've heard another pilot guess that the left turn may have been a holdover from early training in prop twins, where you don't want to turn into the dead engine.
Great video! I appreciate that you kind of toned down on the redundancy because soo many other RUclips channels have these events covered already, so it would be pretty useless to make another video on the topic. One thing though... The proper term is "detached", not distached or something. Thanks Mentour!
Thank you for explaining the separation between the airframe and the engine. Heard a reporter say "Boeing engine" and lost it in front of my family. I had to explain that nobody knows the difference and that leads to misguided thoughts. Also, there are other reasons you do not want to touch those parts: you don't know what they're made of, or what they may contain. You probably don't think of chemical changes to a material that was overheated, and you don't want to be inhaling tiny composite fibers flaking off of the piece you're handling. I've had crash and recovery training where certain aircraft automatically required a hazmat suit to work at that type of site!
Here in Brazil the RBA says that you can keep and take for you the acft or the pieces to assure that the company or operator will pay the damages made in your terrain...
I'm in the flight path of the Charlotte Int. airport. How come the FAA never comes to retrieve their blue ice out of my yard or off my house when I call them? Why don't they want it back?
The mention of engines falling off immediately reminded me of the Bijlmerramp (El Al Flight 1862), where a 747 had the number three engine detach, shoot forward, and crash into the number four engine, after which they both fell to the water below.
When Pan Am's jumbo was blown up over southern Scotland one of the engines landed in a village. The rest of the plane and the passengers were scattered over the moor.
8:37 That's a pretty decent pronunciation of "Maastricht", very nice! (The stress should be on the second syllable rather than the first, but that's just nit-picking)
I usually try to sit in an emergency exit row for extra legroom. The FA always ask if you are able to remove the door in an emergency. I always tell them "If I have to take the door off, I'm keeping it as a souvenir"
Of course you do... You ever been in a cockpit before? Joey : No sir, I've never been up in a plane before. Captain Oveur : You ever seen a grown man naked?
I've always wondered about it. The instructions are either to lay it on the seat or to throw it out the opening. I could imagine even without intending, given all the panic the person who removed the door might carry it with them, once safely away from the plane realize they're still holding it for no reason. I recall once doing that with a kayak paddle when the boat capsized, after swimming to shore I realized I still had the paddle in my hand. Which leads me to think it would be an interesting study to ponder where the doors were typically dropped, if they even were, after airplane evacuations. 100 yards from the plane wouldn't surprise me.
@@quillmaurer6563 they are over the wing so I doubt someone would carry it far as that would make it difficult to evacuate. I read an ntsb report years ago (I could not possibly find it on their website now) of an "uncommanded evacuation". A ground power unit caught on fire next to the aircraft, someone yelled "fire!" and passengers opened the doors and bailed. The flaps were retracted and people broke bones jumping off the wing.
@@juliogonzo2718 True, those exits, especially on large aircraft, feel a little questionable to me. But as for keeping the door, in the heat of the moment people don't think things through, or might not notice they're still holding on to it when preoccupied with getting the hell out of there. I guess it depends on how heavy it is though, they'd probably notice and drop a really heavy thing. And those doors are quite heavy to my understanding. A smaller object I could totally see someone carrying with them without realizing though. An example might be the pull-tab to deploy the evacuation slide, I get the sense that comes off once the slide is activated, I could easily imagine whoever pulled it later realizing the tab handle is still in their hand.
In addition to one of the pilots and engineers walking around, the ground crew also all have eyes on the aircraft. The guy doing the pushback has a walk around as does the team leader of the leading crew. DHL reward ramp rats with an extra day off or more like a flight somewhere, if they spot something on a plane dangerous that has been missed. If ever in doubt you always say something and no question is a stupid question when it comes to safety. Also loads of FOD bins on ramp and ramp rats always have eyes open for that too. (FOD = Foriegn object debris Ramp rats = ramp operatives that guide aircraft to stand, chock, engage stairs and load/unload cargo) On a another note, I like the 777s. The DHL (aerologic) 777s have proper espresso machines on board!
I had been watching your channel intermittently and when this video popped up I thought "there's no way I'll watch the whole video". A short 26 minutes later I had watched the whole thing and was grateful I did- informative and entertaining: keeps you interested. Liked and Subbed.
From another aviator's channel I got a different answer about the left turns: The pilot had a choice about which way to turn and he chose left. Since the aircraft wants to turn right, it might not be all that easy to stop turning right when you want to.
I like this format. Captain Joe did a great video analyzing the incident step by step, with ATC recordings. He explained, that when an engine is out, you preferably make turns in the direction of the working engine for various reasons. I really enjoy your knowledge and on incidents like this, I really like the Q&A format, as you are great at explaining what happened.
8:00 It's seems weird to me for whatever reason that they flew over Denver which is densely populated when there are nothing but fields and farms to the north.
My hero is the Captain. Not only because he’s my boyfriend but because he remained so calm and did all he could to make a safe landing. He likes your channel too @mentourpilot!
I worked on the GE-90 engine in the early '90s. Unlike PW and Rolls, GE knew that they could not stretch the CF6 family to meet the 777 requirements. GE90 was a massive project and the composite fan blade was a huge technological risk. Interestingly, the FAA required the fan to take an 8lb bird strike near the root of the fan blade where stress was highest. In tests, due to the flexibility of the composite, it could withstand a 16 lb bird strike. A fun fact is that the fan diameter of the original GE90 was slightly larger than the diameter of a 737 fuselage.
Great insight on the issue specifically NOT blaming Boeing for the engine failures. And great animations in recent videos. Your new editor/ animator is doing very nice job.
I am an aerospace engineer in aircraft propulsion. My questions are: Should there be more frequent inspections? Should the fan blade's life be re-evaluated?
@@MentourPilot I say a Weibull analysis is on order to start with. This can be a painful process since one must know the times or the cycles on each failed part and the times or cycles on all the parts in service that haven't failed. From the Weibull determine the risk of the next failure. Follow that up with a finite element analysis and an engineering investigation of the failed part. We could be looking at a redesign of the blade. Or consider going to composite fan blades.
I'm still really amazed by the production value of your videos. To create all these animations and even 3D models must take quite a few highly motivated editors.
As a non-pilot, I had no idea that planes don't get manufactured entirely by one company [I'm pretty sure that before WWII they were?]. Mentour is educating me, little by little! Apparently the aviation industry is unimaginably complex. Thank you, Mentour. :)
Well Done Petter, The quality of your videos just keeps going up and up and I know for sure you have helped me and many others realise that a career in aviation is really possible and achievable with hard work.
Well, for your and my need to understand, this is likely true. Being of an engineering mind, I however would not be surprised if there were some apparently small thing which could matter more. I do "believe" in "Murphy's Law", making a hash of our "knowledge".
You indeed earned a subscription from me, sir. Thank you for explaining these things in simple terms and without being condescending to those of us who don't know much about the small details of aviation.
excellent work PETER, yes, we are discussing ENGINE FAILURE and sorry for P&W failures (like any responsible company will figure out the issues) and BOEING, yes NOT BOEINGs fault, every case was a P&W engine. EVERYONE WANTS A SAFE PLANE and EVERYONE is a team. You don't think that AirBus and Boeing COLLABORATE, they do, competitors, if they find something bad will even tell their competitors. BOTTOM LINE: SAFETY Which is why I love the Aviation Community.
7:25 captain joe explained to this, that you dont want to turn over a dead engine because if you did you might experience it to be harder to get out of the turn, becuase your operative engine works against you. What is your opinion on this? To me this seems logical 14:20 actually it looks like the fire is outside of the engine and not on the inside, AgentJayZ made also a great video where he explains a bit from the technical perspective Great Video!
Regarding the direction of turn: Juan at BlancoLirio and his supporters gave the same answer as Capt. Joe. They also went into minimum speed for the rudder to be effective and how that interacts with the direction of the turn and engine thrust.
Yes...the training is to "raise the dead" so that the dead engine is on the high side of the turn when possible. I wonder if it might be less important with the aircraft automatically trimming for the failure now. I suppose that's a possibility.
@4:25 If you single step the video you can see it is making six rotations every second which is equivalent to about 300 to 400 RPM. When running normally it turns about ten times as fast as that.
Hi! Question: Does the rule "Never turn into the dead engine" not apply to jet airliners? It surely does for piston aiscraft, as far as i know. Greetings from Vienna!
AFAIK, it is possible to turn, but the maximum bank angle is restricted. By how much, depends on the configuration of the aircraft. (flaps, landing gear, speed, etc.) If I recall correctly, in a 737, the maximum bank angle for a single engine, fully configured for landing aircraft, (turning into the dead engine) is 15 degrees. Since 15 is the maximum, I assume pilots would turn less than that for safety. So, it's usual for pilots to request turns into the good engine side, during approach. Or an extended final leg, to allow for very gentle banking.
I think there was a discussion (or rather argument) about this on AVherald. The comment there that made the most sense was someone who explained that this is a thing wrt twin propellers, and especially low-powered airplanes/planes flying slowly. In my non-pilot, bad-at-mechanical-physics, brain I understood the problem with turning into a dead engine at low speed to be that you risk losing lift over that wing. And since all pilots start in small planes that fly sort of slow this "don't turn into dead engine" gets ingrained very early. But it only really matters in small and slow planes, but there it can be a life or death thing.
Thank you for calling out that this not a Boeing issue, it's so sad seeing the media headlines "more trouble for Boeing". It makes it so obvious that those headlines and articles are being written by writers who do not understand aviation.
Watching your videos leave me spell bound as always! I do remember the fan blades are checked by ultra sound for cracks, at required intervals. Can the van blades be feathered in any situation such as this ? Thanks again.
Thank you for making that very important point that Boeing and PW are separate. I take great pride in building the 777 and times are crazy enough, we don't need any false information out there!
Whenever I left stuff on board a flight, or my baggage was lost, the carrier always returned my stuff. So when their plane parts land on my roof, I'll gladly try and return their stuff.
Thank you so much for the explanation, Petter. It really helped me make sense of all this. I hope you have never been in an accident like that. I am finally seeing a light at the end of my tunnel. My health is finally improving. If I come back with another set of good labs in a couple of weeks, my specialist will override my primary physician and allow me to travel again, so I may be flying again as early as the end of March! After two years of being grounded, it will be great to fly again! BTW, love the haircut!
@Mentour Pilot, can you talk about the potential dangers of pilots not flying after being grounded during COVID? Do you see the industry taking a step back in its safety record?
To partially answer your question, I have a friend whos a 737 first officer for British Airlines. During the pandemic, he was grounded, but still went in maybe every 2 weeks for either simulator time or a flight, which I'm guessing is to keep their skills sharp.
VERY VERY GOOD VIDEO.... taking many questions that we've all had... and answering them with facts. I really hope that the media will not bash Boeing... and explain that there are very few 777s flying with these engines.
I'd love to see a video about what happens if there is a medical emergency during a flight. Also what happens to the people who may miss another flight due to an emergency landing and if there are any ramifications for the person who has the medical emergency.
I seem to recall that on airliners like these it's possible to change between the originally offered engine types fairly easily, they're relatively interchangeable to the aircraft - all necessary interchanges (wiring, fuel, hydraulics, bleed air, etc) made at the pylon, should be the same where they attach to the aircraft. Not totally sure of that though, it might depend on the aircraft type, some designed for that and others not. They'd also need to update the FMC for the slightly different characteristics of the engines as well. I'd suspect the biggest cost would be the engines and cowlings, and unless these engines are basically deemed scrap, no fix (either a repair or increased inspections) are possible, I'd think they'd want to avoid having to do that for the entire fleet.
To answer your question on 777 memory items. Yes we have them called immediate action items, and the aircraft will bring up the Non Normal Electronic Check List that you must check off.
Another great video as usual, but Halon does not deplete oxygen, it interferes with the chemical reaction of combustion. I assume that once discharged the gas will dissipate and allow re-ignition of any remaining fuel by any hot or sparking parts.
Hi Mentor, I wanted to point out what you said in Question 4, other pilots/aviation experts have explained this question differently. In fact, the reason the pilot decided to turn left, is not because of the standard engine-out procedure, but apparently (I am only citing), because pilots are trained not to turn over the dead engine. So if engine 2 is out, so the right engine, they won't turn right. This has to do with aerodynamics, and the lack of lift on the said wing, due to the uncontained engine failure.
5:20 Something I have seen other pilots (such as Captain Joe) cover regarding an engine out situation is that if you turn into the dead engine, the additional yaw vector would make it harder to end a turn when needed, possibly trapping the airplane in a perpetual circuit in extreme cases. It may be that the 737 just has a stronger rudder than many passenger jets, and some jets may just not have a rudder that can produce enough of a counter yaw to end a turn over a dead engine reliably.
Love this! I think Captain Joe mentioned about why they flew only in left turns as a type of training that pilots get on 2 engine propeller airplanes. And that when they lose an engine they are told to not fly to the engine out side. I like your explanation too!
I was just TODAY thinking, "That guy should make a flower bed or fountain or something out of that 777 cowling. Adds character and value to his suburban home. It's totally finder's keeper's, right?"
@@Hans_R._Wahl If I am correct, the guy can claim the cowling after the NTSB has completed its investigation... he would however need to pay for transporting it to the place of his choice.
@@p6x2 I don't know the specific law of the State of Colorado in cases like that. I saw only on a new picture showing this cowling in a hangar with a NTSB guy.
@@p6x2 That cowling intake crushed in the roof of his new looking truck in the driveway, and did minor damage to the roof of his house. I'm sure with the compensation he could buy an undamaged cowling from the boneyard.
Regarding whether to turn into or away from the failed engine, Peter is absolutely right: When the airplane is trimmed out, you can turn in either direction. To quote Bob Hoover: As long as you have a safe speed, there's no difference.
I was wondering are these engines interchangeable. So if an airline wanted to swap out PW engine for a GE or RR can they do this easily to keep the planes in the air, or are they specific to each airframe?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
My hero on this flight was the passenger who filmed the engine in landscape mode.
Yes -- It's amazing how many "phone camera users" don't seem to realise that you can turn it sideways on !
Vertical Video Syndrome is pretty contagious.
Dude.... Don't get me started on vertical videos. I hate them with a passion. I wish RUclips had a filter or something to prevent people from uploading vertical videos. Maybe then they'll get the message. :-)
@@patrickmitchell6968 I hate them too, I work as a video operator and I am responsible for camera cut, recording and big projection surfaces like extra powerful projectors and LED walls. Its totally ruining my work if some of the contents is in low res or obscure and unusable aspect ratio formats. Eg you have a nice screen that is 4k or more and you are palying crappy content that uses one thirf of width at its best...and the customer wants to fill in the unused part of the screen with blurred and resized original clip.
I wonder why phones dont have a nag screen saying...are you really sure to look like a moron and record video vertically ?
One of the injuries in the Netherlands was unfortunately a child who picked up a piece of the engine and burned his hand, so that's another reason not to touch any engine parts that fall from the sky.
Very pod point
Don't touch frozen bodies that land in you back garden, either.
And if blue ice falls from the sky, I wouldn't advise picking it up. At least not without a dog poop bag.
Ok, let it cool then take it into your garage.
I hadn't even thought about the temperature 😳 great point, thank you!💯
If aircraft parts start falling on my house I'm calling The Weather Network to report unusual precipitation.
Lmao
The Four Horsemen have nothing on Jim Cantore.
Special weather alert ( 50 to 100 cm of airplane parts collateral damage included)
That's funny
“The sky is falling!” -chicken little
The amount of knowledge he has about so many aspects of aviation and this incident is impressive. Right down to the manufacturing process of the blades, what happened on board in related incidents, the blade inspection process. After a video like this, mainstream coverage of this incident is a joke, just sensationalism.
Aww, so nice of you to say.
It takes a while to research before a video like this. So glad it is appreciated
Not to mention great graphics. I'm a visual person and the graphics help me understand what he is describing.
Research = watching other people's videos.
@@SJF15 actually, not really. This video was mostly researched by checking previous incidents as well as talking to contacts etc.
@@MentourPilot whatever the research, producing this level of content requires a lot of different aspects to be a really high level. I'm only mildly interested aviation but watch almost all of your videos because you deliver the information in such an engaging way. As well as any other channel across many different topics I'm interested in...thanks for opening up such a complex technical subject 👍
In 25 years of being a machinist and engine builder. I can say that even brand new engines built perfectly and to the check list can experience failures of material. Ive seen forged connecting rods have a catastrophic failure at idle only being in the motor for 4 hours.
Glad you closed out with the focus that the engine is the problem, not the airframe! The public never gets that distinction. Great vid!
Based on what survey you assume that?
@@SkyrimCZtutorials Fair - I'm basing that on my own observations having flown a lot for business. Essentially, if the general public doesn't even know what kind of airplane they're flying on, how would they even know who made the engines? Or that multiple engine options exist? They see something like this, they blame Boeing. Assuming they get the manufacturer right. I get a chuckle when the major news networks talk about Airbus 737s.
@@Midcon77 Generally that's fair, though it does get a bit more murky with engine exclusivity deals. With the likes of the GE90 on the 777 LR, W and X or the CFM family on 737NG and beyond, then even if the engine is at fault, since there is no alternative, the airframe package has to deal with those consequences.
After all, part of the reason those exclusivity arrangements exist is that it makes it easier for the manufacturer to optimise their aircraft if they know it is only going to be fitting one engine type. That was part of Boeing's justification for no alternatives on newer 777 variants, despite the wishes of some existing 777 customers wanting to have greater commonality with their existing fleets.
Well to be fair... Today I Found Out that airliners can have different engines as per request of the airline xD
Not that I blamed Boeing for this. Their MAX problem, definitely Boeing... but not this.
@@BrySkye Agreed. Boeing didn't build the engine though, and that's my main point - the general public sees all these videos of the 777 with a blown engine and they immediately will jump to the conclusion that the Boeing Airbus 747-150 is a death trap because the engines explode on takeoff. Those of us who are enthusiasts or in the industry know better, and I'm just glad Mentour pointed it out. Boeing builds the airframe, not the engine, and in the cases documented here, the airframe did just fine. The engines did not.
That said, who designs/builds the cowling? I honestly don't know - would P&W have built that cowling? Does Boeing build it to P&W's specs? The cowling is supposed to contain at least one blade separation but it doesn't appear that happened here with that one shot of the fuselage puncture?
I appreciate you pointing out that the air frame and the engines are two different things. Popular think is "I bought a Ford so the motor is Ford" :-) This was a good one, thank you.
My family and I had Hyundai and Proton cars with Mitsubishi engines.
Im pretty sure the FAA and the NTSB has first dibs on any aircraft parts that fall to the ground no matter who "owns" them.
Not only that but if you touch or move anything they deem material to their investigations, you could be brought up on evidence tampering, obstruction, or other charges. Leave the stuff alone, don't touch it, and call law enforcement.
@@rontiemens2553 only if it doesn't affect your safety. It is does move it otherwise leave it be.
But do you have the right to charge them an admission fee to come onto your property to retrieve it?
@@boataxe4605 I wouldn't think so. You can't obstruct them in any way.
@@ianmontgomery7534 In pretty much all realistic cases probably yes, in general, choosing the least disastrous option is roughly aligned with the best available option.
the Maastricht incident was in the Netherlands. In the Dutch language that is 'Nederland'. If you look on the map at 6:38 you see that if the incident in Denver had occurred a little later the aircraft would have been over a town called Nederland. There are some weird coincidences in life
Check out all the Hanovers and Hannover or even Kalifornien, not the state California, but the beach Kalifornien on the baltic shore of Germany. So some from Nederland has moved quite early and called the new settlement "nederland" like in so many other cases. Sometimes those city names evolved and left the historical spelling behind and went to the english for example Braunschweig as the origin which had later become the english Brunswick or even New Brunswick. And then you find the different spellings as in Hannover and Hanover ...
@@typxxilps yes, but having 2 engine failures within 1 day,
with the same P&W4000 engine, is a very rare coincidence.
Now, off all the places in the world, this happening above similar named places, makes it so much more rare.
Either way im never going to Honolulu, at least not until someone breaks the curse ;)
@@typxxilps How far is California away from Brazil? Less then 1 km.
You are speaking truth! Nederland is a high mountain town close to the Indian Peaks and south of the more famous Estes Park.
HAHAHA i love Mentour jacuzzi when Petter pops up from it, love it!
I laughed way too hard at that 😂
Yeah, but the fan blade table is really cool. I want one :D
That killed me too... Petter really has a cool sense of humor
It was a good chuckle :-)
More of this please
Mentour: I’m a retired military air traffic controller. Granted it was years ago but I was taught to not ask an aircraft to make turns into a dead engine. So I would have automatically issued left turn radar vectors to this aircraft. Only if the pilot was okay with right turns would I have issued right turns.
I believe another aviation channel on RUclips said the same thing as you (Captain Joe? or maybe it was someone else, but it was a pilot's channel). I have no idea and find this fascinating. I did note that the ATC very pointedly asked the pilot which way he wanted to turn.
@@alix5704 Yes, Captain Joe mentioned the same thing. I believe he said twin-propeller pilots get taught this and that it's possible the pilots remembered it from their training. IIRC the reason is that it can be harder to get back out of the turn. But same as Mentour he also said they still should be able to turn in both directions just fine and it's just a precaution or something. From other comments, it seems that in this case, it was probably because it's a fixed procedure at that airport.
We should ask Captain Sully. That dude turned left with both engines out lol
I think there was a discussion (or rather argument) about this on AVherald.
The comment there that made the most sense was someone who explained that this is a thing wrt twin propellers, and especially low-powered airplanes/planes flying slowly.
In my non-pilot, bad-at-mechanical-physics, brain I understood the problem with turning into a dead engine at low speed to be that you risk losing lift over that wing.
And since all pilots start in small planes that fly sort of slow this "don't turn into dead engine" gets ingrained very early. But it only really matters in small and slow planes, but there it can be a life or death thing.
@@GerardMenvussa Good question. If I understood the conversation at AVHerald correctly, it probably wouldn't. Because the issue would be speed and lift. And if you still had one engine on the dead side, that shouldn't be an issue. But I'd love for someone who actually knows something to answer this.
Thank you for pointing out that this is a engine manufacturer problem and not the aircraft manufacturer.
Agreed, but the maintenance schedule is Boeing’s responsibility, no?
@@jimhofoss9982 Why would that be Boeing's responsibility? The airframe is not the engine...
@@ERIK31351 Because it’s a Boeing aircraft: they put together all the parts, and chose these engines to be installed. You can’t just “pass the buck”. e.g. you buy a brand new suv, and two weeks later, they brakes fail, and a bad accident occurs. The automobile manufacturer denies any responsibility, because the failed brakelines were made in taiwan. Do you think that would hold up in court? Someone has to be held accountable…and imo that would be the manufacturer of the aircraft who installed these engines in the bird
These Videos have become SUCH a high quality... I kind of have to check wether I‘m really on RUclips again and again 😅😅😅. They are amazing, you are doing such a good job!!!
Awww, that’s so nice to hear! Thank you and thanks for watching!
TLDR: Yes you can keep them; as long as you hide them really well before anyone knows that you had them in the first place!
this isnt such a great idea but if your gonna do it at least dont do it with parts like brackets, blades or god forbid the black boxes, there are already plenty of cases where critical components related to the cause of failure were never able to be found so the issue wasnt able to be nailed down from the incident, the cowling is one thing since its usually more of a casualty than a cause but highly functional or structural parts are worth far more as evidence than in your collection
ironically the less damaged a part looks the more important it may be to recover since those are likely the ones that caused the failure or were closely related to the cause
You sue the shit out of them and take a nice settlement!
@@dcale15 You can only sue for your damages.
@@nodttiurp eh you can sue for negligence but that's gonna take awhile for the report to come out
@@michaelf.2449 ...Only if you were damaged due to their negligence.
LOL! This is probably the last thing on my mind if it would happen to me.
But the animation of you in an engine cowling jacuzzi... priceless! ;)
I disagree with your answer to “why only left turns?”
In America it’s more common for pilots to graduate up more slowly through planes. On smaller planes multi engine with less rudder authority its much harder to keep it flying straight. In these pilots are taught to prefer turning away from the dead engine so the plane wants to go to straight and level, rather than into It where the plane wants to turn. This is especially key if you are slow, and you may drop below the minimum speed for rudder effectiveness which could send you into a death spiral....
I'm in the US and agree 100%. Every instructor has always drilled into me "Never turn over a dead engine."
An airline pilot is expected to not drop speed below Vmc. That's what we train extensively for. Whether the plane turns left or right is insignificant because the plane turns by moving the lift vector from vertical to the direction of the turn. The rudder does not turn the plane like a boat, but rather ailerons bank the plane in the direction desired so the wings are lifting in that direction. The over riding issue on this is terrain clearance and the crew is expected to navigate a route established by United policy and procedure.
Dear mister Mentour Pilot. Could you make a video of El Al cargo Boeing 747 flight LY-1862. The plane lost 2 engines after takeoff and crashed 15 kilometers from Schiphol
Exactly!
Also we turn left because NASCAR
3:23 Don't forget that there are blade coatings that also make stress cracks invisible, even to some forms of non-destructive testing.
I really appreciate you answering the thumbnail question in the beginning of the video instead of the end. It motivated me to happily watch the rest of the video!
Very good that you separated the fault from Boing, when it is P&W engine failure, P&W alone.
We will see what the problem was but the B777 did a great job of bringing everyone down on the ground safely
@HisRoyalHost Maybe, maybe not. United is the largest operator of PW4000-powered 777s, which increases the odds of it happening to one of their airframes.
You're not accounting for the Japan Airlines example.
@HisRoyalHost I wasn't talking about the size of the airline. If you operate more of a particularly variant, then if there is an inherent problem with that variant, then you're more likely to be on the receiving end.
Like I said, Japan Airlines also suffered a near identical incident with one of its own PW4000 powered 777's.
Also, the first United incident happened before Covid led to these aircraft spending more time on the ground, so that can't be considered a completely definitive reason either.
It's ALWAYS Boeing failure at this stage: maintenance of engines is a Boeing duty after delivery, not P&W! Bottom line before airline, before pilots, before passengers, before innocent people at home!
@@MentourPilot I couldn't agree more strongly. Everyone got down okay which is what counts and the flight crews were awesome. But the fact is that Boeing will take hits no matter what. It's the way things are these days. Fair or unfair. I don't like it, but I do recognize it.
I always look forward to your take on these things. Whenever anything air related happens, I look for your video on it. Great work as always.
Thank you!! It’s so nice to hear that you guys are enjoying the content
@@MentourPilot Thanks for the video but I would add that 2 days [2/18] after the incidents the FAA levied 6 million in fines against Boeing for failure to comply with FAA directives re: cowling failures in 2018.Reported in the WSJ.
@@MentourPilot I like very much that you provide details that that others do not. More pls.
Dear mister Mentour Pilot. Could you make a video of El Al cargo Boeing 747 flight LY-1862. The plane lost 2 engines after takeoff and crashed 15 kilometers from Schiphol
A 777 pilot said the engine is attached with a 3-point mounting system. It is designed in such a way that if there is excess vibration, the engine will detach before any structural damage is transmitted to the wing.
Mmmmhhh Self detaching Engines 😂
Thats is quite a weird design statement. No part of an aircraft will purposely detach, ever.
In aero engineering we have such things as preferential modes of failure and damage tolerance, but detaching a 3 ton component on purpose is very absurd. We design the airframe to whitstand quite a bit of vibration from windmilling, both the wing/fuselage and the engine pylons. If something fails is just because it exceeded those limits, not because it was "designed to detach"
If you think a little bit, detaching an engine could cause it to hit the stabilizer and making the aircraft uncontrollable
@@chhschwabe I simply stated what this guy said. I do know that he is a 777 pilot. I'm not an engineer and state only what I heard from someone who I consider much more knowledgeable in the area than I. I believe he simply meant that mounts would fail before the wing failed. Planes have flown after an engine has detached. I think that's preferable to having the structure of the wing damaged to an extent that there was risk of losing the wing.
Former LEO in Ohio here....those airplane parts are considered Evidence and no, you cannot keep them. Report it to your local Ohio State patrol who handles downed aircraft in this state. Love this episode!
I think this comment is all one needs to know to have the answer to the question in the video title.
Ohio
In the atpl we are taught not to turn into an inoperative engine to prevent loss of control. Since in asymmetric flight your aircraft already wants to turn towards that engine, turning into it only makes it worse and could lead to not being able to exit that turn.
I actually have an aircraft accident site on my property here in Oklahoma. The accident happened in 1939 and all the debris is still on my property. But I did send a letter to the NTSB to make sure the investigation was closed.
i was thinking too about leaving the engine cowling leading edge part as a lawn ornament. nice conversation piece to leave there
Although many youtube videos have started copying you, you are the king and always will be.
I cannot express how big of a fan I am of your channel content and your personality.
From the point of view of a passenger, you get something to talk about at the bar for a long time! I was on a flight out of the Philippians a long time ago. DC6 very old at the time. Flying to Taiwan on a Taiwanese owned service. 20 minutes out over the Pacific there was a violent shaking and lots smoke rolled out of an engine. Soon after white smoke (fire suppression.) Prop stopped turning. In broken English the pilot came on and said that due to "technical" difficulties we were returning the the PI. It's worth noting that shortly after take off the stu came around with bowl of hard candies. I didn't want any but she insisted that I crunch on them to help make my ears pop because the plane was too leaky to maintain cabin pressure.
On the ground and looking out the cabin window we could see oil running out onto the tarmac. They brought out another engine on a test stand but couldn't get it to start. After unloading passengers they said the flight would resume after some minor repairs. They took a cylinder and piston assembly off each and swapped them. After many tries they got the engine to start. Loaded passengers with the engine running and directed us away from the spinning prop and to the loading ladder. The cowling was not put back on. More hard candy and an uneventful flight to Taiwan. Fond memories of international flying in the good old days.
Thanks, Mentour, I started watching your videos to counter my fear of flying by finding out what's actually going on in those cockpits. Now I'm just watching them for life advise ;)
Always 💙 ur channel. As a disabled person I will never be able 2 be on a flight crew. I'm learning lots from u though.
Thank you for watching and interacting. I’m so glad to have you here.
Why not train and make it a goal of yours? The skies the limit.😊👍🏾👍🏾
The nature of your disability decides that. You may be lucky.
If/ when they make a plane that s9me1 in a wheelchair can fly in ll b 1st in line.
God bless you friend.
Your point at the end about differentiating the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer was right on point. Thanks!
Question 6: Blancolirio (which flies a 777-300) has posted multiple updates on this, in his first report he identified the "master caution: engine fire" alert from the public audio track and walked through the 777-200/300 action list list for this, as you guessed it does starts with 5 "memory items" (IE things you're supposed to be able to do before even reading the list).
Avherald has said that they've been told that both extinguisher bottles had been used. IIRC the memory item for this list says to trigger the first bottle on fire indication, then if it's still indicating a fire 30 seconds later fire the second one. From what we know it seems likely the pilots followed this procedure to the letter.
This guy has incredible knowledge, and has a way of explaining things in which anyone can understand. I absolutely love all his you tubes and have learned so much. I hope that once i start my training for a ppl, i hope i get an instructor that can explain things even half as good as mentour. Keep the good videos coming
If the instructor isn't half as good shop around for another instructor!
It isn't like there is only one near you.
The left turn to return to the airport is in the airport's procedures for Denver.
Yup, that’s what I figured.
@@MentourPilot Captain Joe mentioned in his video about this incident that trainees in flight school are instructed that "it's not recommended to perform turns over the dead engine", but maybe that only applies to twin propeller aircrafts?
Blancolirio says that you always want to turn "away" from the damaged engine hence the left turn.
I checked out the engine out procedure at my airline taking off on that runway....left turn to 080.
Might they also have done it to be closer to centennial airport?
One of these parts actually fell on my street, five houses down. The answer: no! They scoured our street for portions, even canvassing.
All you gotta say is no I didn't see anything
"I hope you liked this Q&A"
You had me at the Jacuzzi.
Thank you for making it something different. We have some great ones on RUclips already that get it out very quick and try to stay to the facts but don’t really have time to answer very specific questions in their videos. They try to in the comments or other people in the industry will answer if they know the answers. But a video answering some of the most common questions helps put some of the rumors to bed. Good job.
I've heard another pilot guess that the left turn may have been a holdover from early training in prop twins, where you don't want to turn into the dead engine.
Great video! I appreciate that you kind of toned down on the redundancy because soo many other RUclips channels have these events covered already, so it would be pretty useless to make another video on the topic. One thing though... The proper term is "detached", not distached or something. Thanks Mentour!
@1:03 "Take cover" Well.. a cowling is a kind of cover right? 😄
Thank you for explaining the separation between the airframe and the engine. Heard a reporter say "Boeing engine" and lost it in front of my family. I had to explain that nobody knows the difference and that leads to misguided thoughts. Also, there are other reasons you do not want to touch those parts: you don't know what they're made of, or what they may contain. You probably don't think of chemical changes to a material that was overheated, and you don't want to be inhaling tiny composite fibers flaking off of the piece you're handling. I've had crash and recovery training where certain aircraft automatically required a hazmat suit to work at that type of site!
Here in Brazil the RBA says that you can keep and take for you the acft or the pieces to assure that the company or operator will pay the damages made in your terrain...
I have to say, I haven’t watched your videos for quite a while, but coming back to these recent ones the production has been amazing.
I'm in the flight path of the Charlotte Int. airport. How come the FAA never comes to retrieve their blue ice out of my yard or off my house when I call them? Why don't they want it back?
The trick is to tell them you think there is a frozen blue body in it. Possibly a Stowaway Smurf
@@andrewtaylor940 "oh wait, *_GREG THAT IS A HUMAN CHILD._* "
The amount of valuable, well-structured information you give out in under 30minutes is astonishing.
i really enjoyed him wearing a BOEING t-shirt, while his wife had an Airbus t-shirt in former videos ;-)
Yeah, we still have those 😂
His wife is clearly smarter!
@@lgonzalez1154 And you clearly didn't watch the last part of the video! :P
Love Mentor Pilot's red and green creativity!
@@miranda.cooper guilty!
The mention of engines falling off immediately reminded me of the Bijlmerramp (El Al Flight 1862), where a 747 had the number three engine detach, shoot forward, and crash into the number four engine, after which they both fell to the water below.
When Pan Am's jumbo was blown up over southern Scotland one of the engines landed in a village. The rest of the plane and the passengers were scattered over the moor.
8:37 That's a pretty decent pronunciation of "Maastricht", very nice! (The stress should be on the second syllable rather than the first, but that's just nit-picking)
I usually try to sit in an emergency exit row for extra legroom. The FA always ask if you are able to remove the door in an emergency. I always tell them "If I have to take the door off, I'm keeping it as a souvenir"
Of course you do...
You ever been in a cockpit before?
Joey : No sir, I've never been up in a plane before.
Captain Oveur : You ever seen a grown man naked?
I've always wondered about it. The instructions are either to lay it on the seat or to throw it out the opening. I could imagine even without intending, given all the panic the person who removed the door might carry it with them, once safely away from the plane realize they're still holding it for no reason. I recall once doing that with a kayak paddle when the boat capsized, after swimming to shore I realized I still had the paddle in my hand. Which leads me to think it would be an interesting study to ponder where the doors were typically dropped, if they even were, after airplane evacuations. 100 yards from the plane wouldn't surprise me.
@@quillmaurer6563 they are over the wing so I doubt someone would carry it far as that would make it difficult to evacuate. I read an ntsb report years ago (I could not possibly find it on their website now) of an "uncommanded evacuation". A ground power unit caught on fire next to the aircraft, someone yelled "fire!" and passengers opened the doors and bailed. The flaps were retracted and people broke bones jumping off the wing.
@@juliogonzo2718 True, those exits, especially on large aircraft, feel a little questionable to me. But as for keeping the door, in the heat of the moment people don't think things through, or might not notice they're still holding on to it when preoccupied with getting the hell out of there. I guess it depends on how heavy it is though, they'd probably notice and drop a really heavy thing. And those doors are quite heavy to my understanding. A smaller object I could totally see someone carrying with them without realizing though. An example might be the pull-tab to deploy the evacuation slide, I get the sense that comes off once the slide is activated, I could easily imagine whoever pulled it later realizing the tab handle is still in their hand.
In addition to one of the pilots and engineers walking around, the ground crew also all have eyes on the aircraft. The guy doing the pushback has a walk around as does the team leader of the leading crew. DHL reward ramp rats with an extra day off or more like a flight somewhere, if they spot something on a plane dangerous that has been missed. If ever in doubt you always say something and no question is a stupid question when it comes to safety.
Also loads of FOD bins on ramp and ramp rats always have eyes open for that too.
(FOD = Foriegn object debris
Ramp rats = ramp operatives that guide aircraft to stand, chock, engage stairs and load/unload cargo)
On a another note, I like the 777s. The DHL (aerologic) 777s have proper espresso machines on board!
I had been watching your channel intermittently and when this video popped up I thought "there's no way I'll watch the whole video".
A short 26 minutes later I had watched the whole thing and was grateful I did- informative and entertaining: keeps you interested. Liked and Subbed.
From another aviator's channel I got a different answer about the left turns: The pilot had a choice about which way to turn and he chose left. Since the aircraft wants to turn right, it might not be all that easy to stop turning right when you want to.
Would that be Captain Joe? I suspect.
I heard that too, but while you are above Vmc it should be possible to get out of either turn.
Blancoriliooliolii or Captain Joe?
@@AA-tz2bm Captain Joe
I like this format. Captain Joe did a great video analyzing the incident step by step, with ATC recordings. He explained, that when an engine is out, you preferably make turns in the direction of the working engine for various reasons.
I really enjoy your knowledge and on incidents like this, I really like the Q&A format, as you are great at explaining what happened.
8:00 It's seems weird to me for whatever reason that they flew over Denver which is densely populated when there are nothing but fields and farms to the north.
The right engine failed, and you don’t turn over the dead engine
My hero is the Captain. Not only because he’s my boyfriend but because he remained so calm and did all he could to make a safe landing. He likes your channel too @mentourpilot!
I worked on the GE-90 engine in the early '90s. Unlike PW and Rolls, GE knew that they could not stretch the CF6 family to meet the 777 requirements. GE90 was a massive project and the composite fan blade was a huge technological risk. Interestingly, the FAA required the fan to take an 8lb bird strike near the root of the fan blade where stress was highest. In tests, due to the flexibility of the composite, it could withstand a 16 lb bird strike. A fun fact is that the fan diameter of the original GE90 was slightly larger than the diameter of a 737 fuselage.
Great insight on the issue specifically NOT blaming Boeing for the engine failures.
And great animations in recent videos. Your new editor/ animator is doing very nice job.
I am an aerospace engineer in aircraft propulsion. My questions are: Should there be more frequent inspections? Should the fan blade's life be re-evaluated?
Hard to say, but I guess that will be thoroughly evaluated now.
As a member of the flying public, I am going to say “yes!”.
@Politically Correct LOL. I actually have some experience in low cycle fatigue life of rotating turbine engine parts and risk assessment.
@@MentourPilot I say a Weibull analysis is on order to start with. This can be a painful process since one must know the times or the cycles on each failed part and the times or cycles on all the parts in service that haven't failed. From the Weibull determine the risk of the next failure. Follow that up with a finite element analysis and an engineering investigation of the failed part. We could be looking at a redesign of the blade. Or consider going to composite fan blades.
Fit new engines after every landing
I really like your explanation of engine choices and how that choice is up to the customer. Well done.
I'm still really amazed by the production value of your videos. To create all these animations and even 3D models must take quite a few highly motivated editors.
Agree! It's incredible.
As a non-pilot, I had no idea that planes don't get manufactured entirely by one company [I'm pretty sure that before WWII they were?]. Mentour is educating me, little by little! Apparently the aviation industry is unimaginably complex. Thank you, Mentour. :)
Damn Amazon delivers anything, jet engine cowl right up to the steps
Drop shipping only
LOL...best answer yet
You should stop buying things from amazon.
Lol. Brilliant. They would if you had the money an someone would sell it to you
Well Done Petter, The quality of your videos just keeps going up and up and I know for sure you have helped me and many others realise that a career in aviation is really possible and achievable with hard work.
Man, between you and Juan Browne (blancolirio) I now know everything is left to know about this issue!
Well, for your and my need to understand, this is likely true. Being of an engineering mind, I however would not be surprised if there were some apparently small thing which could matter more. I do "believe" in "Murphy's Law", making a hash of our "knowledge".
You indeed earned a subscription from me, sir. Thank you for explaining these things in simple terms and without being condescending to those of us who don't know much about the small details of aviation.
This was fantastic! I learned so much as always from your videos.
Excellent! That’s what I aim for
excellent work PETER, yes, we are discussing ENGINE FAILURE and sorry for P&W failures (like any responsible company will figure out the issues) and BOEING, yes NOT BOEINGs fault, every case was a P&W engine. EVERYONE WANTS A SAFE PLANE and EVERYONE is a team. You don't think that AirBus and Boeing COLLABORATE, they do, competitors, if they find something bad will even tell their competitors. BOTTOM LINE: SAFETY Which is why I love the Aviation Community.
7:25 captain joe explained to this, that you dont want to turn over a dead engine because if you did you might experience it to be harder to get out of the turn, becuase your operative engine works against you. What is your opinion on this? To me this seems logical
14:20 actually it looks like the fire is outside of the engine and not on the inside, AgentJayZ made also a great video where he explains a bit from the technical perspective
Great Video!
yeah i want to say this same
Regarding the direction of turn: Juan at BlancoLirio and his supporters gave the same answer as Capt. Joe. They also went into minimum speed for the rudder to be effective and how that interacts with the direction of the turn and engine thrust.
Yes...the training is to "raise the dead" so that the dead engine is on the high side of the turn when possible. I wonder if it might be less important with the aircraft automatically trimming for the failure now. I suppose that's a possibility.
@4:25 If you single step the video you can see it is making six rotations every second which is equivalent to about 300 to 400 RPM. When running normally it turns about ten times as fast as that.
Listen to the man, folks! If it starts raining aircraft parts whilst you're sitting in your garden, get out of there quickly!
This made me think of the engine that fell off a 737 in Cape Town in 2007... Maybe you can have a video about that some day.
The triple 7 has been one of the safest aircrafts built by Boeing. I never thought we should consider who makes the engine before booking a flight.
wow, 2 year old video, you sound so much more confident now compared to 2 years ago! good work.
Hi! Question: Does the rule "Never turn into the dead engine" not apply to jet airliners? It surely does for piston aiscraft, as far as i know. Greetings from Vienna!
AFAIK, it is possible to turn, but the maximum bank angle is restricted. By how much, depends on the configuration of the aircraft. (flaps, landing gear, speed, etc.)
If I recall correctly, in a 737, the maximum bank angle for a single engine, fully configured for landing aircraft, (turning into the dead engine) is 15 degrees. Since 15 is the maximum, I assume pilots would turn less than that for safety. So, it's usual for pilots to request turns into the good engine side, during approach. Or an extended final leg, to allow for very gentle banking.
@@haschid Thank you for this really helpful answer!
I think there was a discussion (or rather argument) about this on AVherald.
The comment there that made the most sense was someone who explained that this is a thing wrt twin propellers, and especially low-powered airplanes/planes flying slowly.
In my non-pilot, bad-at-mechanical-physics, brain I understood the problem with turning into a dead engine at low speed to be that you risk losing lift over that wing.
And since all pilots start in small planes that fly sort of slow this "don't turn into dead engine" gets ingrained very early. But it only really matters in small and slow planes, but there it can be a life or death thing.
@@Asptuber Thank you! Things are getting a bit clearer now!
Thank you for calling out that this not a Boeing issue, it's so sad seeing the media headlines "more trouble for Boeing". It makes it so obvious that those headlines and articles are being written by writers who do not understand aviation.
The general principle is that until such time as the owner recompensed you for any damage incurred you may hold the parts.
The questions were very appropriate and your answers were thorough and understandable. Good job. I really enjoyed this.
Watching your videos leave me spell bound as always! I do remember the fan blades are checked by ultra sound for cracks, at required intervals. Can the van blades be feathered in any situation such as this ? Thanks again.
Thank you for making that very important point that Boeing and PW are separate. I take great pride in building the 777 and times are crazy enough, we don't need any false information out there!
Whenever I left stuff on board a flight, or my baggage was lost, the carrier always returned my stuff. So when their plane parts land on my roof, I'll gladly try and return their stuff.
Haha true
Sure, just give me 2 weeks to get around to it
Sensible! And practical!
Be a good citizen and help out!
I lost my favourite purple jacket in Edinburgh Airport years ago and never did get it back. So I reckon they owe me a fan blade or two.
Thank you so much for the explanation, Petter. It really helped me make sense of all this. I hope you have never been in an accident like that. I am finally seeing a light at the end of my tunnel. My health is finally improving. If I come back with another set of good labs in a couple of weeks, my specialist will override my primary physician and allow me to travel again, so I may be flying again as early as the end of March! After two years of being grounded, it will be great to fly again! BTW, love the haircut!
@Mentour Pilot, can you talk about the potential dangers of pilots not flying after being grounded during COVID? Do you see the industry taking a step back in its safety record?
To partially answer your question, I have a friend whos a 737 first officer for British Airlines. During the pandemic, he was grounded, but still went in maybe every 2 weeks for either simulator time or a flight, which I'm guessing is to keep their skills sharp.
VERY VERY GOOD VIDEO.... taking many questions that we've all had... and answering them with facts.
I really hope that the media will not bash Boeing... and explain that there are very few 777s flying with these engines.
I'd love to see a video about what happens if there is a medical emergency during a flight. Also what happens to the people who may miss another flight due to an emergency landing and if there are any ramifications for the person who has the medical emergency.
Best aviation channel on YT. You'll have a million subscribers in no time.
Question, did United Airlines can switch the brand of the engine, of the gounded flet?
I seem to recall that on airliners like these it's possible to change between the originally offered engine types fairly easily, they're relatively interchangeable to the aircraft - all necessary interchanges (wiring, fuel, hydraulics, bleed air, etc) made at the pylon, should be the same where they attach to the aircraft. Not totally sure of that though, it might depend on the aircraft type, some designed for that and others not. They'd also need to update the FMC for the slightly different characteristics of the engines as well. I'd suspect the biggest cost would be the engines and cowlings, and unless these engines are basically deemed scrap, no fix (either a repair or increased inspections) are possible, I'd think they'd want to avoid having to do that for the entire fleet.
Nope, not cost effective their 772 fleet is slowing being phased out , fun fact PW equiped aircraft usually have lower resale value comparted to RR\GE
Thanks for the answare
Fantastic explanation. Very interesting. Enjoying my “ Positive attitude“ T-shirt.
To answer your question on 777 memory items. Yes we have them called immediate action items, and the aircraft will bring up the Non Normal Electronic Check List that you must check off.
Thank you!
The Q & A video was superb! Love this style of video. Thumbs up for the man!
Shutting off bleed air is important as it’s part of pressurization and could introduce smoke into cabin. This is dependent on design of course.
Fly me daddy
Another great video as usual, but Halon does not deplete oxygen, it interferes with the chemical reaction of combustion. I assume that once discharged the gas will dissipate and allow re-ignition of any remaining fuel by any hot or sparking parts.
You’ve long ago earned my subscription ✌️✌️😂
Thank you 😊
Hi Mentor, I wanted to point out what you said in Question 4, other pilots/aviation experts have explained this question differently. In fact, the reason the pilot decided to turn left, is not because of the standard engine-out procedure, but apparently (I am only citing), because pilots are trained not to turn over the dead engine. So if engine 2 is out, so the right engine, they won't turn right. This has to do with aerodynamics, and the lack of lift on the said wing, due to the uncontained engine failure.
I love the “REALLY BAD DAY COMMENT” 😂😂
I rewound and rewatched it 10 times!
5:20 Something I have seen other pilots (such as Captain Joe) cover regarding an engine out situation is that if you turn into the dead engine, the additional yaw vector would make it harder to end a turn when needed, possibly trapping the airplane in a perpetual circuit in extreme cases. It may be that the 737 just has a stronger rudder than many passenger jets, and some jets may just not have a rudder that can produce enough of a counter yaw to end a turn over a dead engine reliably.
"In the bottom of fire extinguishers, which are round, look like footballs..."
Americans: wHAtt iS fOOtBalL
Sorry, soccer
LOL, Americans...footballs aren't round.
Those things also look like sea mines.
Is that some sort of volleyball or something? lol!
@@anthonyc8892 When Americans say "football", they're generally referring to the sport the Aussies call "handegg".
Love this! I think Captain Joe mentioned about why they flew only in left turns as a type of training that pilots get on 2 engine propeller airplanes. And that when they lose an engine they are told to not fly to the engine out side. I like your explanation too!
I was just TODAY thinking, "That guy should make a flower bed or fountain or something out of that 777 cowling. Adds character and value to his suburban home. It's totally finder's keeper's, right?"
The NTSB collected everything...✈
@@Hans_R._Wahl If I am correct, the guy can claim the cowling after the NTSB has completed its investigation... he would however need to pay for transporting it to the place of his choice.
@@p6x2 I don't know the specific law of the State of Colorado in cases like that. I saw only on a new picture showing this cowling in a hangar with a NTSB guy.
@@p6x2 That cowling intake crushed in the roof of his new looking truck in the driveway, and did minor damage to the roof of his house.
I'm sure with the compensation he could buy an undamaged cowling from the boneyard.
Regarding whether to turn into or away from the failed engine, Peter is absolutely right: When the airplane is trimmed out, you can turn in either direction. To quote Bob Hoover: As long as you have a safe speed, there's no difference.
I was wondering are these engines interchangeable. So if an airline wanted to swap out PW engine for a GE or RR can they do this easily to keep the planes in the air, or are they specific to each airframe?
Hello Mentour Pilot. I really enjoy watching your videos. You're my favorite! Watching you from Las Vegas, NV.