pilotosdeiberia.com

[jagc1969]

EFE
JOHANNESBURGO.- Un avión de una compañía sudafricana tuvo que hacer el miércoles un aterrizaje de emergencia en el aeropuerto de Ciudad del Cabo porque se le cayó uno de los dos motores mientras despegaba, informaron fuentes de la compañía.

Según la agencia local Sapa, no hubo heridos, porque la aeronave, un Boeing 737 de la compañía Nationwide, siguió operando con el otro motor hasta que aterrizó a salvo en el mismo aeropuerto del que había salido.

El avión llevaba 106 pasajeros a bordo. Iba con destino a Johannesburgo pero, en el despegue, "se informó de que el motor derecho se había separado del ala", dijo la compañía sobre el vuelo que partió a las 15.30 hora local (14.30 en la España peninsular).

"La aeronave regresó y aterrizó en el aeropuerto internacional de Ciudad del Cabo sin mayores incidentes", agregó la nota.

Los pasajeros, que no sufrieron daños, tuvieron que recibir atención psicológica.

Una de las pasajeras, Ronel Derman, que estaba sentada a la altura del ala, dijo que, en el despegue, su compañero de asiento, al lado de la ventanilla, le dijo, después de escuchar un gran ruido: "Ese motor que acaba de caer era el nuestro".

"No me lo podía creer", agregó la pasajera. "El aparato comenzó a sacudirse un poco, pero es sorprendente que los tripulantes y los pasajeros mantuvieron la calma", añadió.

Su compañero de vuelo también la tranquilizó y le dijo que no se preocupara porque el avión podía seguir funcionando con un motor.

Después de arrojar el combustible que llevaba, la tripulación preparó a los pasajeros para el aterrizaje de emergencia, que se realizó sin problemas, tras limpiarse los restos que habían caído a la pista.

En sus declaraciones, la pasajera, que estaba esperando otro vuelo que le llevara a Johannesburgo, confiaba en que esta vez tendría más suerte.

[lord_of_wind]

POR FAVOR DONDE ESTAN ESOS SPOTTERS CUANDO SE LES NECESITA!!!

En serio hay fotos, vídeos, algo??? tiene que ser digno de ver... como dice el bajito mas famoso de España, madre mia...

Algún técnico que nos explique como puede pasar eso por favor!.

saludos

[Bristol]

January 21, 1989

Piedmont Jet Loses Engine in Chicago

By JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
LEAD:

The right engine of a Piedmont Airlines Boeing 737 fell off in a takeoff from Chicago's O'Hare Airport today, scattering debris on the runway that delayed flights for hours at the nation's busiest airport. The plane landed safely on its second engine and no one was injured.

The right engine of a Piedmont Airlines Boeing 737 fell off in a takeoff from Chicago's O'Hare Airport today, scattering debris on the runway that delayed flights for hours at the nation's busiest airport. The plane landed safely on its second engine and no one was injured.

Aviation officials immediately opened an investigation of the incident, which was the most dramatic of three within 24 hours involving aircraft around the country.

The Piedmont flight, with 27 passengers and six crew members, was taking off for Charlotte, N.C., and was about 1,000 feet in the air when the accident occurred, aviation officials said. The engine fell into a field about a half mile from the airport.

Thursday night, an Eastern Airlines Boeing 757 taking off from Atlanta lost a 15-square-foot section of aluminum skin on a wing but returned to the airport safely. No Injuries in Incidents

In the other incident, a small commuter turboprop lost power in both engines and landed safely in a Colorado cornfield. The United Express twin-engine commuter propjet that had left Stapleton Airport in Denver carried a crew of three and 26 passengers.

The Eastern flight from Atlanta carried 105 passengers and a crew of six.

There were no injuries in either of these incidents, airline officials said.

In recent months, a variety of safety concerns have surfaced after a number of accidents involving various models of the Boeing 737, one of which crashed Jan. 8 in England, killing 44 people. The plane that lost its engine over Chicago was a model 737-200, a type that has become the world's best-selling commercial aircraft.

One important difference in the 737-200 and the 737-400 model that crashed in England is that they have different engines. The engine that fell from the Piedmont jet was a Pratt & Whitney JT8, while the engines on the British Midlands jet were made by CFM International of France.

The Piedmont plane had made more than 21,000 flights in its eight years of service. The British Midlands plane was three months old.

Federal aviation officials said their initial assessment suggested that the problem that led to the loss of the engine apparently involved structural parts rather than engine failure and vibration. But they said it would be some time before the exact cause of the accident could be determined. A Breakaway Engine

A team from the National Transportation Safety Board began an investigation. The board was awaiting a metallurgist to examine parts of the damaged plane, an official of the board said. The engine and the parts that connect it to the wing, the pylon, tore away, the official said.

A spokesman for Boeing said the engine is attached to the wing using special bolts designed to break away under severe stress, like that caused by a malfunctioning engine's vibrations or by the impact of a crash. The bolts are a safety feature that avoids more serious damage to the plane in an emergency, he said.

A senior official of the Federal Aviation Administration said the O'Hare incident ''probably had nothing to do with the engine itself.'' He said the most likely explanation was that part of the mounting structure failed and the bolts holding the engine to the wing gave way as they were designed to do.

About a year ago, the aviation agency issued a directive to inspect those bolts on aircraft in service because some of them were found to be cracking.

Those inspections were ordered after a USAir Boeing 727-200, similar to the one involved in the O'Hare incident, had its right engine fall away at an altitude of 4,000 feet. The incident occurred five minutes after departing Philadelphia International Airport, on Dec. 5, 1987. The plane returned safely. Both USAir and Piedmont are owned by the USAir Group.

After an investigation, the safety board said the engine separated because of cracking caused by metal fatigue in one of the three bolts holding the engine in place.

In the Atlanta incident involving a Boeing 757, a 4-by-6-foot section of the wing that smooths the flow of air past the wing tore loose about half an hour after takeoff. The plane was bound for Los Angeles. Disruptions at Airport

The problem at O'Hare caused major disruptions of service at the airport for most of the day, said an official of the Chicago Department of Aviation. Because flights from many cities make connections at O'Hare, the delays spilled over to affect passengers at other airports as well.

Some runways at O'Hare had to be closed so that debris could be cleared away. Even a small piece of metal can severely damage a jet engine if it is ingested in takeoff or landing.

Fuente: http://query.nytimes.com

[Ovt]

Esto es lo que he podido recopilar...









Photos were posted on AvCom by Kremlin

[Juanma_B737]

A mi me suena a un 737-400... se le veia un poco tocado ya

[Ni si ni no]

Es un -200, motores JT8D, los del MD vamos.

[ChusPu]

Pues han tenido suerte. Recuerdo dos documentales de esos de catástrofes aéreas en los que ho hubo supervivientes. En ambos casos fue pérdida de motor. Uno creo recordar que era un dc10. En despegue perdió un motor de un plano y tuvieron problemas hidráulicos. En pocos segundos volaban en invertido y os podeis imaginar el final.

El otro fue un 747 de carga que cayó sobre edificios de viviendas (creo que en Amsterdam). Se le cayó un motor interior en pleno vuelo, que salió hacia delante para enseguida ser atrapado por el avion, destruyendo casi todo el borde de ataque y arrancando el motor exterior (creo que fueron el 3 y el 4). Los analistas comentaban que la tripulación tubo gran pericia, pero creo recordar que al volar en una situación nueva para ellos (no el volar con 2 motores, pero si el volar con el ala muy dañada), al final perdieron el control por llevar un ángulo de ataque muy grande para ese estado del plano.

Por cierto, las fotos impresionantes.

[Maverick7]

El de amsterdam fue el accidente de la cía ELAL:

http://www.tu.tv/videos/seg-catastroficos-accidente-amsterdam

Lo que relatan en la investigación es que al ir a 280KT el avión se mantuvo estable durante algo más de 8 minutos pero que al disminuir la velocidad para el aterrizaje a 260KT el ala dañada se desestabilizó y alabeó hasta los 90º...es espeluznante la vista de la cabina con el edificio delante..Todo por el desgaste de unos tornillos de 14cm.

D.E.P