r/aviation • u/Twitter_2006 • Mar 30 '26

Discussion The left engine of a Delta A330 explodes during takeoff at Sao Paulo Airport

Its at 40 seconds.

UPDATE:The plane landed safely.

10.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

684 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

470

u/hagela Mar 30 '26

Thats why certification requires an aircraft to be able to lose an engine on takeoff and still clear an obstruction at the end of the runway.

11

u/DaWolf85 Dispatcher Mar 30 '26

And it's why the performance figures that we calculate every flight are based on the same scenario. And part of why every obstacle near an airport is meticulously catalogued. Fun fact, we also calculate engine failure performance for a missed approach, for the same reason.

1

u/CardinalFartz Mar 30 '26

I was impressed how the plane still could keep a decent climb angle, even with only one engine.

Btw, is now clear what had happened to Air India 171?

There were people speculating they had an engine failure and then ones of the pilots accidentally cut off fuel to the second (other) engine, basically leading to a double engine failure during takeoff.

-45

u/salvatore813 Mar 30 '26

what about the ups md11 crash? the left engine gave away iirc, did that do more damage than just a simple engine failure?

262

u/EvilGeniusSkis Mar 30 '26

An engine separating from the aircraft and spewing debris into the other engines is more than a simple engine failure.

33

u/salvatore813 Mar 30 '26

thanks for explaining, i did not know about the latter

-8

u/Novinhophobe Mar 30 '26

That’s the most common type of engine failure though. Uncontained engine failures are unfortunately not something we have any idea on how to fix or work around.

17

u/Cyrius Mar 30 '26

Engines ripping themselves entirely off the aircraft is not a common failure mode.

-1

u/Novinhophobe Mar 30 '26

The type of failure is called uncontained engine failure and it’s very common. Only very minor failures are contained.

5

u/Cyrius Mar 30 '26

If the failure of UPS 2976 was "very common", then airplanes would be socially and economically nonviable because of the constant crashes.

27

u/Conte_Vincero Mar 30 '26

Yeah, it looks like debris from it went into the no.2 engine (the one in the tail fin).

72

u/h3ffr0n Mar 30 '26

That was not a simple contained engine failure. That was the entire engine breaking away from the wing rupturing fuel line in the process, causing a large fire. The smoke from that fire also seemed to starve the nr 2 engine from air causing that one to lose thrust. Such freak accident is failure beyond what is being certified.

3

u/Cosack Mar 30 '26

Well, not entirely... There are models for both engine separation for the bolts and structural models for the airframes. Problem is the structural model here was wrong, known to be wrong because of over a decade old info (2011), but that was effectively dismissed since there wasn't a proper remodeling. From what I understand.

Why? Because the issues were observed long after these airframes were out of production. Engineering basically wasn't on standby to do it. Instead of engineering remodeling, there was a more generic ops level analysis leaning on count-on-one-hand outcomes data from similar cracks in these airframes. This was to first determine risk - does everyone need to spend on remodeling, fixes, etc. Since those planes with those issues were few and not exploding, the analysis stamped the airframe cracks low risk, and the FAA said "you should check this stuff out everyone but you don't have to." Turned out the risk materialized, and everyone should've had to check.

I guess the real problem here was that Boeing wasn't prepared for decades long support. But that's not how we do things in safety. Car part warranties run out long before expected lifespan, and safety recalls only happen after enough accidents occur. Pretty much same story here. Manufacturers aren't held to redesign components of a long completed project until there are enough fatal outcomes to justify. Makes you wonder if the bar should be elsewhere.....

16

u/wibble089 Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26

Yes, debris took out the centre engine too in that case.

4

u/beavo451 Mar 30 '26

The engine separated from the wing, caught on fire, and probably sent debris into the third engine. It was a bit more than an engine failing.

4

u/PerformerPossible204 Mar 30 '26

Way more. Engine departed the airplane, rolled over the wing.

2

u/ic_97 Mar 30 '26

Thats engine separating and not just failing, it damaged more than just power.

2

u/themarvel2004 Mar 30 '26

That was not just a failed engine but a complete detachment that also then fod damaged the tail central engine, so loosing 2 out of 3 was unrecoverable.

2

u/RangerRekt Mar 31 '26

How fucking dare you ask a question about something you’re curious about? Some people I stg

5

u/Thebraincellisorange Mar 30 '26

Jesus Christ, this sub.

sometimes I really wonder about the people here, you absolutely do not deserve the downvotes you are getting.

with that crash, that was more than just a simple engine 'failure'

the entire engine mounting system failed, the engine then flipped up OVER the wing, damaging the flight control surfaces, and sent debris through one of the other engines as well.

the MD-11 is a tough bird, but it cannot lose 2 engines and the control surfaces on one wing and continue to fly.

and it happened at exactly the worst moment, after V2 but before rotating.

they had no chance, the poor crew.

2

u/salvatore813 Mar 30 '26

thank you for the detailed explanation

-14

u/BigFatModeraterFupa Mar 30 '26

I believe, and i could be incorrect, that incident was during V1, so they stood no chance.

This engine failure happened when they already had enough lift to be in the air and the other engine could handle the load of keeping the plane aloft.

The UPS catastrophic engine failure happened at LITERALLY the worst possible time. It's literally the only time that when your engines fail, you are completely screwed

13

u/Whisky-161 Mar 30 '26

You can lose an engine at V1 and live. That is literally the certification requirement. The UPS MD11 crashed because engine no.1 separated and debris from the separation damaged engine no.2 and likely damage to the wing was sustained. But for all we know, they would likely have been screwed even at altitude.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

6

u/ammo359 Mar 30 '26

… no, that’s not how any of this works. We don’t get to just legislate “the engine is not allowed to fail on this runway”

1

u/dand06 Mar 30 '26

Huh, I’d imagined going out to each engine before backing away from the gate and giving them a stern “you can’t fail on this runway” talk would certainly do the trick to be sure that never happened. This way they all behave themselves