Boeing 777 Engine Failure at Takeoff?

[JoeBentley]

About 10 seconds after liftoff from runway 19R something happens with the left engine. Alot of smoke and fragments of metal and other material falls down on the runway. At first the pilots don't get any indications in the cockpit and plan to go on to Kuala Lumpur. Then we decide to call Arlanda duty officer to make sure that they have noticed the pieces from the engine on the runway. Shortly after that the pilots requests fueldump and return to ARN safely.

[marc137]

the picture dosent work

it says for information on how to link to our photos, please read http//:www.airliners.net/usephotos/

hope that helps

[Alchemy]

Airliners.net is a tricksy hobbits.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?id=1134244 should work.

Well, it's a good thing those dratted guvment tests were right... it can fly with one engine, because based on this picture that left one isn't giving much go-power.

Allowing for "translation" I do have to somewhat doubt the text that goes with this... a failure like this that results in "chunkage" would trip all kinds of indicators and alarms in a matter of seconds... the text implies they be-bopped along for a period prior to "noticing" anything wrong... unless prehaps I'm rading too much into it and the poster is implying that the plane is so stable that they didn't notice till they caught the warning lights etc...?

Warlok

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Originally Posted by Warlok5

Allowing for "translation" I do have to somewhat doubt the text that goes with this... a failure like this that results in "chunkage" would trip all kinds of indicators and alarms in a matter of seconds... the text implies they be-bopped along for a period prior to "noticing" anything wrong...

According to The Star (Malaysia),

The air traffic controller instructed flight MH09, some 15 minutes after it took off, to return to the airport when ground staff found bits of metal and insulation materials near the runway.

...which implies to me that the pilots were unaware of the problem until the tower contacted them.

[CSGirl]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

Airliners.net is a tricksy hobbits.

Okay, I'm not sure why that was so funny to me- but I'm in class, and it almost made me laugh out loud.

Me? On snopes during class? Never!

[Troberg]

Yep, it's true, at least if one belives Swedish newspaper Expressen.

http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=739729 (in Swedish)

It seems like they lost one engine, but dumped fuel, turned around and landed again without further incident.

Great shot, though.

[Hans Off]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Great shot, though.

Indeed, note the pic credit. Only using a Nikon D70 with a 80-200mm F2.8 zoom!

[ricco1]

Hmmmm....

Something about that photo just doesn't look right to me at first glance, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

I've certainly never seen a plane that clean before. Looks more like a model, with the smoke added in later.

But it's on airliners.net, so maybe it's just me.

[Jay Tea]

Originally Posted by ricco1

Hmmmm....

Something about that photo just doesn't look right to me at first glance, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

I've certainly never seen a plane that clean before. Looks more like a model, with the smoke added in later.

But it's on airliners.net, so maybe it's just me.

Too clean? That's gotta make the list of 'most spurious claims of potatoshopping' for sure

Airliners are often spotless, especially new ones

I really want to read the FAA report on this one. I can't see how the pilots wouldn't notice the asymmetric thrust (or the LOSS of 50% of your thrust). Of course, the aircraft is designed to do exactly what they did (lose engine on take-off, still make altitude, dump fuel, go around, land, change pants), so maybe the did notice, but were following procedures.

And to those in the know, how do they "dump fuel"? I always thought they went out to sea (so they would not dump it on someone), but Atlanta is far from any sea.