http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9392/25705535.jpg
Link to Article:
google.com/hostednews/ap/art … AD975TP180
Close one…
Wait a minute…
They lost an engine, quite literally, five minutes out from takeoff and then the Pilot elected to continue flying all the way across the continent of South America to Columbia?
Whoa.
Joe
Given what he was almost certainly carrying and the fact that he probably knew it and knew what would happen to him, his family, his dog and his dog’s family if the shipment were delayed or (horrors!) failed to arrive at all, I wouldn’t be surprised if he taxied the plane all the way to Columbia.
(Yes, I’m a cynic but I won’t apologize for it. Civilization has collapsed in most of South America and the drug cartels are in complete charge of the police and courts. Get used to it folks.)
Engine pieces from a U.S. plane fell from the sky early Thursday in Brazil, hitting 22 houses and a car but sparing passengers and residents on the ground.
I love the part I highlighted above. Them thar cargo airplanes carry lots of pax!
You are on to something EXCEPT he was going to pick up the “Packages” maybe not so much drop off.
Someone correct me here if needed…Arrow is based in MIA aren’t they? I’m sure the FAA will have some questions for the crew on this one.
I read it as referring to passengers in the referenced car.
Three crew members **and a mechanic **were aboard the aircraft, which apparently encountered engine problems about five minutes after takeoff, Marinho said.
The mechanic would be considered a passenger since he is not part of the crew… am I right?
Maybe not, some countries require a mechanic for some operators and different types. But generally speaking, I would agree; he is a non-rev passenger.
I am going to go on a limb and say he’s part of the crew. I can say from dealing with these types of companies be they cargo or pax charters, they will bring a mech. along JUST in case something happens.
Now I ask, what good would a mechanic do in this instance? The plane got airborne…he’ll be there in Columbia to get an ass chewing by the capt. when he sees the piece of the engine missing.
Hell, why not? British Airways experienced an engine failure on a 747 departing Los Angeles and elected to continue the flight, on three engines, to Manchester, England!!!
No, you’re right. Arrow is based out of Miami. So I doubt they’d want to risk carrying any ‘packages’ without the FBI doing some serious investigating.
As far as the FAA and NTSB, they’ll definitely be looking into this. But this has me wondering… Anybody happen to know when this particular DC10 rolled off the assembly line? I ask if it was pre or post-1979, and how maintenance was done on this.
In case you’re wondering, I am wondering if this is what was supposed to happen with AAL191 if they hadn’t done crappy maintenance.
BL.
Right, I remember very well the above referenced incident. The BA Pilot figured why not keep going all the way to Heathrow on three engines, not realizing that the extra drag and inefficiency of a 744 flying on only three remaining meant that he’d be out of fuel before then, forcing him to set down in Manchester.
Reason for my original post above is that in my flying experience I’ve learned that almost every fatal accident is the result of more than one “little thing” going wrong. Sure, most multi engine airliners can lose an engine on takeoff and remain flying and given enough fuel, can continue on to their destination. But it’s all the unknown variables that can crop up than can make a bad situation go worse.
In the example of the BA flight above I can imagine a worst case scenario where the plane, running low on fuel arrives in the British Isles but weather has closed in closing an airport, or some such thing. Before you know it what seemed like no problem becomes quite significant. Ahhh… maybe I’m just too conservative. And maybe they’re all cowboys down in South America.
Joe (Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory.)
Couldn’t have said it better.
Before some get too carried away…the whole engine didn’t fall off. What fell off was the shroud that encompasses the exhaust portion of the turbine section which also has the cone (described in layman’s terms) that covers the blunt end of the turbine housing.
In this photo you can see it attached at the end of the engine:
Another perspective of how it is attached at the rear:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/2/9/5/0277592.jpg
Then incident shroud looks like it’s off of a GE CF-6 engine, but the designs are similar whether it be a GE or a Pratt.
22 houses were hit by debris, not sure what really came off the plane.
Speaking of a crappy carrier OAI 
They SUCK!
When the exhaust housing/shroud departed I could see where the turbine section would be damaged and lose some blades. The subsequent debris would be pretty small compared to the exhaust housing/shroud.
The cutaway diagram below depicts the sections of the engine…with the turbine, or power section, being at the very aft.
[quote=“tpr1040”]
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00F594SaXh1lN/610x.jpg
Found a shot of the damaged plane.[/quote]
A little speed tape, a little bondo, the rest will buff right out! 
iSu coche rascarse mi reactor!