Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Appears to have been very well handled by crew and ATC. I'm especially pleased that the crew declared "MAYDAY"; so often US aircrew (private & professional) appear to be reluctant to use the M and P words.

It did indeed lose one or more fan blades (N1?)

I rest my case - twin ops, less to go wrong

True (as a 'twin guy I am compelled to agree) but I have to say it was nice on the Jumbo. "Watch out chaps(esses), it looks like we've lost a donk. What say you we descend from FL350 to 310 and keep going?" :D

(Not forgetting to balance the fuel.....before someone else says it)
Wide-Body wrote:
Trent772 wrote:Lost its cowls and then a fail....

They do hate losing their clothes :lol:

They don’t normally loose there clothes unannounced, I suspect someone did not fasten them up whilst dressing.

This video of the windmilling engine on approach is good enough to pause & see lost blade(s). Which event caused what result will be of interest in the investigation; certainly the loss of (and recovery of) the complete engine nose ring & other components is unusual.

Don’t forget GE - the GE90 has a large share of the 777 engine market too, including most of BAs.

Flying RR powered jets obviously gives the best excuse for having a clapped out old banger though - “well, why get a posh car when I drive 2 Rolls Royces at work”
johnm, Iceman, Flyin'Dutch' and 1 others liked this
CNN international running big segments on this, talking about both the 777 & 747 having P&W engines and grounding of the US 777 P&W fleet. wrt the 747 I dont think they get that airports are so close together in that part of Europe..!!

Regards, SD..
I think there are only ~120 of those early Boeing 777s with that engine and that are therefore subject to the grounding - only operated by United in the US, and also operated by Japan and S Korea. And of that~120, about half are currently in storage anyway. In view of the age of the aircraft I'm not sure re-engining would be cost-effective unless the swap is very easy.