SQ 777 engine sucked in baggage container

[eminere™]

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

Epic.

[Durian]

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.

Thanks for the technical details!
Could this type of incident the reason for some airlines to install video cameras on the underbelly or on the fin ? Or is it only to entertain passengers ?

[FSJZ]

Thanks for the technical details!
Could this type of incident the reason for some airlines to install video cameras on the underbelly or on the fin ? Or is it only to entertain passengers ?

The original purpose of the underbelly and wing cameras on the 777 is to aid the pilot during taxi and allow him to have better spatial awareness. This is usually projected on the Navigation Display in the cockpit as seen below.

It can also be used for the pilots to detect foreign objects on the ground that may be ingested into the engines. However, due to the placement of the camera, the engine most probably blocked the baggage container, hence the pilots could not see it.



Airlines then thought it would be entertaining for the passengers to watch and keep them occupied on the ground. Killing two birds with one stone

[boing]

The original purpose of the underbelly and wing cameras on the 777 is to aid the pilot during taxi and allow him to have better spatial awareness. This is usually projected on the Navigation Display in the cockpit as seen below.

It can also be used for the pilots to detect foreign objects on the ground that may be ingested into the engines. However, due to the placement of the camera, the engine most probably blocked the baggage container, hence the pilots could not see it.



Airlines then thought it would be entertaining for the passengers to watch and keep them occupied on the ground. Killing two birds with one stone

It was a 772, so no camera installed. The baggage container would have been within visual range of both captain and FO.

[FSJZ]

It was a 772, so no camera installed. The baggage container would have been within visual range of both captain and FO.

Thanks for correcting me I doubt the baggage container would have been visible to the FO when the plane got closer to the gate

[hjerapa]

See OP, hjerapa.

Hi CarbonMan, pardon my ignorance, where do i find op ?

Thanks !

[FN-GM]

Hi CarbonMan, pardon my ignorance, where do i find op ?

Thanks !

OP means original post. The very first post on the thread. It has the aircraft registration (9V-SRP).

[hjerapa]

OP means original post. The very first post on the thread. It has the aircraft registration (9V-SRP).

ohh how silly of me ! i totally missed it as i only went straight for the link ! Thank you so much !

[CarbonMan]

ohh how silly of me ! i totally missed it as i only went straight for the link ! Thank you so much !

I also suffer from increasing symptoms of dyslexia as I age!

[Jumbojet Lover]

Airlines then thought it would be entertaining for the passengers to watch and keep them occupied on the ground. Killing two birds with one stone

Assuming such an incident was visible, wouldn't it be funny if passengers could see a container getting sucked into the engine.

[RCTP]

Assuming such an incident was visible, wouldn't it be funny if passengers could see a container getting sucked into the engine.

Nah. Not funny. I would have freaked out. Especially since if I can see the engine means I'm pretty near to it.

[Jumbojet Lover]

Nah. Not funny. I would have freaked out. Especially since if I can see the engine means I'm pretty near to it.

Yes I meant it sarcastically. Very large FOD there.

[hviswanathan]

SRP is back in service in 3 days. Looks like damage was not that big or SQ maintenance staff is really efficient.

[Russ]

Well, they just do an engine swap so 1 day is enough, but in this case, they probably needed to change the front cowling and check of pylon damage etc. SQ rotates their engines in the fleet and do have a number of spares available.

In the 747 days, you could attach a 5th spare engine on the wing and use it to fly the engine and engineers/technicians to another airport to replace any damaged engines. SQ did this a number of times - a friend of mine in SIAEC did a couple of these trips.

No major airline would let an airframe sit idle due to engine failure or damage.

[9V-SPL]

A clearer picture of the damage it caused to the engine:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...33023069_n.jpg