https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/plane-was-nosediving-united-airlines-boeing-737-engine-erupts-flames-over-texas

Quote:

---

"I remember there was just this bright, flashing light that came through the window, and it sounded like a bomb went off, and then it was just a strobe of fire out the window," David Gruninger, who was on his way back to Florida on a connecting flight, told local media outlet"

---

Is this another Boeing goof or on some other company?

I'm guessing the engine manufacturers or United maintenance.

I'm not sure how you can blame an engine fire on BA.

Boeing doesn't make the engines.

I guess they didn't deliver the jet then?

Rocky Rider said:

---

I guess they didn't deliver the jet then?

---

"Is this another Boeing goof or on some other company?"

HTH

Isn't a standard rate of descent for a commercial airliner about 500-700 f/m? In an emergency , as much as 10x that?

Did it bounce a little on first touchdown?

cecil77 said:

---

But hey, they got $200 and a $15 food voucher!

---

And they were all transported, by another aircraft, safely to their destination.

This is NOT on Boeing, and probably not on United maintenance either.

I shouldn't have clicked on that. I'm on a 737 about 45 minutes out of Houston inbound.

But did everyone clap when they landed?

Rapier108 said:

---

It wasn't even an engine fire as the engine is actually on fire.

It was an engine surge; you can tell because the flame is pulsing rather than continual.

It is one of the more common engine problems on modern jet engines, but still very rare. If it had happened during the day, it would have looked far less dramatic.

The aircraft was never in danger and the pilots handled it correctly.

Zero to do with the aircraft being a 737. It could happen on an Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc.

---

I read lotta your posts....seems you are an expert on everything!

My level of concern on a plane I base on the flight attendants. I fly maybe 6-8 times a year. They do so daily and have likely seen just about anything. If they don't look concerned neither am I lol. I've only been on one flight where they didn't and heard one say to the other "this isn't good". My stress level was much higher for the last hour of that flight.

Rapier108 said:

---

It wasn't even an engine fire as the engine is actually on fire.

It was an engine surge; you can tell because the flame is pulsing rather than continual.

It is one of the more common engine problems on modern jet engines, but still very rare. If it had happened during the day, it would have looked far less dramatic.

The aircraft was never in danger and the pilots handled it correctly.

Zero to do with the aircraft being a 737. It could happen on an Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc.

---

Modern day Sullies.

I'm likely to get killed in a road rage incident driving from New Caney to Hobby, than I am to die in a plane crash.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

My level of concern on a plane I base on the flight attendants. I fly maybe 6-8 times a year. They do so daily and have likely seen just about anything. If they don't look concerned neither am I lol. I've only been on one flight where they didn't and heard one say to the other "this isn't good". My stress level was much higher for the last hour of that flight.

---

My level of concern used to be nil and I flew alot when I was younger. Now my biggest concern is based on passengers.

I'm not worried about crashing, I'm significantly more worried about having to endure idiots having a meltdown.

nortex97 said:

---

300-400 feet per minute is hardly a nose dive.


Probably a bird strike or something, but not an uncontained engine failure. Planes are spec'd to survive an engine failure after V2/rotation, and come back and land.

Pretty absurd, imho. Compressor stalls/bird strikes happen quite a bit, actually, and it sounds like this guy was terrified yes but that is not really…an accurate analyses.

---

Umm, if there is a loud boom and the engine is on fire, I'm perceiving any downward tilt of the nose as a nose-dive and freaking the f* out.

techno-ag said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

It wasn't even an engine fire as the engine is actually on fire.

It was an engine surge; you can tell because the flame is pulsing rather than continual.

It is one of the more common engine problems on modern jet engines, but still very rare. If it had happened during the day, it would have looked far less dramatic.

The aircraft was never in danger and the pilots handled it correctly.

Zero to do with the aircraft being a 737. It could happen on an Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, etc.

---

Modern day Sullies.

---

Handling engine surges are about as routine as it gets. Not quite like landing on the Hudson.

Saxsoon said:

---

cslifer said:

---

I'm not sure how you can blame an engine fire on BA.

---

Boeing is ****ed either way because even a flat tire is gonna get the headlines

---

Well they sold their souls to McDonell Douglas and stopped being an engineering company.

I believe they also moved their headquarters to Washington DC

If you follow the ATC channel on YouTube, engine failures/compressor stalls/etc happen on Boeing and Airbus jets EVERY SINGLE WEEK somewhere in the world.

Basically a non-event in the scheme of things.

Dang. Almost end of pg1 and no one has blamed air traffic control hiring practices?

F16 be slippin'

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

I guess they didn't deliver the jet then?

---

"Is this another Boeing goof or on some other company?"

HTH

---

My point is Boeing selected the engine provider, integrated the engine into their platform, and then delivered the aircraft to the airline so they are in the spotlight if there was a failure; although it's sounding like if the event was caused by something like a bird strike the engine may have performed as designed.

Boeing can handle their supplier's performance offline. If they stand in the spotlight and just point a finger at their supplier, that's lame. I wouldn't buy an aircraft from a manufacturer that behaves that way and I integrate a lot of suppliers into products I deliver and I'm accountable for how the product performs.

" My point is Boeing selected the engine provider….."

Airlines "select" which engine manufacturer they wish to use.

For instance in 737 MAX aircraft, CFM and P&W offer engines and it's up to the airlines which they use.

Rocky Rider said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

I guess they didn't deliver the jet then?

---

"Is this another Boeing goof or on some other company?"

HTH

---

My point is Boeing selected the engine provider, integrated the engine into their platform, and then delivered the aircraft to the airline so they are in the spotlight if there was a failure; although it's sounding like if the event was caused by something like a bird strike the engine may have performed as designed.

Boeing can handle their supplier's performance offline. If they stand in the spotlight and just point a finger at their supplier, that's lame. I wouldn't buy an aircraft from a manufacturer that behaves that way and I integrate a lot of suppliers into products I deliver and I'm accountable for how the product performs.

---

Completely irrelevant unless you just want to bash Boeing for the sake of bashing Boeing.

There is nothing wrong with the CFM-56 engines on the 737. It is one of the most reliable engines in use, and given how many are out there, the occasional failure is going to happen. Besides the 737, it is also used on the Airbus A320 family, the upgraded DC-8-71/72/73 as well as the the E-3D, E-6, KC-135R, RC/WC-135.

What matters is the flight was never in danger and the engine didn't explode or fly apart. The engine design did its job. And as I said before, an engine surge, while scary looking, is not a threat to the aircraft.

Quote:

---

Boing 737 Out of Houston Makes Emergency Landing

---

Yup, so don't know how I am going to ever see Boeing the same again...

aggiedent said:

---

" My point is Boeing selected the engine provider….."

Airlines "select" which engine manufacturer they wish to use.

For instance in 737 MAX aircraft, CFM and P&W offer engines and it's up to the airlines which they use.

---

The 737-300 to 900 (Classics and Next Generation) only use the CFM-56 engines.

The 737-MAX uses the CFM International LEAP-1B, the 56's successor. There is no P&W option for the 737-MAX.

But him trying to bash Boeing for "selecting" the CFM-56 being the cause of this engine having a surge incident is either due to just wanting to bash Boeing, or not having any clue about the passenger aircraft manufacturing business.

Probably both.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

My level of concern on a plane I base on the flight attendants. I fly maybe 6-8 times a year. They do so daily and have likely seen just about anything. If they don't look concerned neither am I lol. I've only been on one flight where they didn't and heard one say to the other "this isn't good". My stress level was much higher for the last hour of that flight.

---

Little did you know that they were talking about finding out the pilot they had the threesome with the night before was married to their best fiends sister.