SQ 777 engine sucked in baggage container

[FSJZ]

A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-200 (9V-SRP) operating as SQ421 from Mumbai on 19 December, sucked a baggage container into its engine while taxiing into Gate F37 at Changi Airport. The incident occurred at around 1634.

Fortunately, there were no injuries on the ground or onboard the aircraft. All passengers have disembarked from the plane safely and investigations are ongoing. The status and extent of damage on 9V-SRP is unknown.

Source: Engine of Singapore Airlines flight sucks in container

[CarbonMan]

I would imagine this happening near the gate, some loose baggage container hanging around on the periphery. Wonder if it actually got suck in its entirety into the engine - that would be a very costly accident. Lucky not one of the new 77WNs - that would be heart-breaking.

[eminere™]

Happened to JAL 5 years ago too: http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...-1225711483087

[FSJZ]

Happened to JAL 5 years ago too: http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...-1225711483087

I think the 777's engine diameter is bigger than that of a 747, so the baggage container might have been sucked in more than that. Most likely damaged the first few rows of fan blades, and if debris got deeper into the engine, then gg.com. Quite expensive to repair

[eminere™]

I think the 777's engine diameter is bigger than that of a 747, so the baggage container might have been sucked in more than that. Most likely damaged the first few rows of fan blades, and if debris got deeper into the engine, then gg.com. Quite expensive to repair

Yep. SIA might have to replace the whole engine...

[hjerapa]

Anyone knows which plane it was ?

[CarbonMan]

Anyone knows which plane it was ?

See OP, hjerapa.

[boing]

Only a small part of the aluminium container was left undamaged, with the rest ingested into the engine. Seems the whole engine has to be completely overhauled, with damages deep inside the engine.

[CarbonMan]

Only a small part of the aluminium container is left undamaged, with the rest ingested into the engine. Seems the whole engine has to be completely overhauled, with damages deep inside the engine.

Any pics? Wonder if the container was on wheels.

[milehighj]

Any pics? Wonder if the container was on wheels.

There's a video of the incident taking place which i saw posted on Facebook.

[milehighj]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151839599552966

[Durian]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151839599552966

Crazy ! Looks like a number of people are at fault here... shouldn't the pilots have noticed after they did the last turn ? And what about ground staff ? Pilots and ground people not on the radio ?

[CarbonMan]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151839599552966

Good man! The commentary in Malay is quite entertaining - wonder if it's the security people viewing the playback video. Whether it's the pilots or the baggage handlers who left the container there or the aircraft marshals, someone is going to seriously going to get grilled for that expensive snafu.

Also shows how powerful those engines are, even at parking speed.

[boing]

The marshaller's main responsibilty is to make sure the area within the red line is clear of any object prior to the aircraft's arrival and marshal the aircraft safely. This can't be seen clearly in the video, but the container is clearly inside the line. Where it shouldn't have been ! The marshaller guides the aircraft into through a device called the ADGS. He could stop the aircraft anytime by just releasing the deadman switch.

Of course, the pilot and the cargo handler are partially to blame for not visually checking the bay is clear and placing the container there respectively. But they are more of contributory factors.

And the empty baggage container, it weighs anywhere from 75 to 90 kgs.

[FSJZ]

Crazy ! Looks like a number of people are at fault here... shouldn't the pilots have noticed after they did the last turn ? And what about ground staff ? Pilots and ground people not on the radio ?

The pilot in command would have his eyes on the Safegate Aircraft Docking Guidance System to line himself up with the gate centreline and to know when to stop. The pilot not in command would have been scanning the gate area to ensure that it is clear. However, it was likely that the pilot not in command was in the First Officer seat, so he would not have been able to spot the luggage container on the other side of the aircraft.

The baggage container was left outside of the ramp safe zone, demarcated by a red line. Hence, it was much closer to the engine than usual, and ingestion into the engine would have been inevitable. Moreover, the baggage container seems to have come from the neighbouring gate, F42, as the baggage containers for this flight would have been to the right of the aircraft, where the cargo doors are.

When taxiing into a gate, pilots are advised to apply idle or minimum thrust, so as to prevent foreign object damage to the engine. However, even at idle thrust, the Rolls Royce Trent 800s would be powerful enough to suck in an empty baggage container. Hence, it is necessary that all ramp objects are placed outside of the danger zone until the aircraft engines have been shut down and the beacon lights have been turned off by the pilots, indicating that it is safe for the ground crew to approach the aircraft.

The Guidance System is controlled by a computer, but there is an emergency stop button to override the computer. It is also likely in this case that the ramp staff were not diligent enough to spot the safety lapse and activate the emergency stop button.

There would not have been radio communication between the ground crew and the pilots as it is done through a headset that is plugged into the nose wheel after the aircraft's engines are shut down. In this case, the aircraft was still taxiing into the gate, hence it was not possible for the ground crew to communicate with the pilot except through hand signals.