Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-8 Uncontained Engine Failure?  
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 195 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 44306 times:

This was mentioned in the 747-8 production thread.

A 747-8 had a rejected takeoff at ZSPD. On 11/9, it seems that during takeoff, an Air Bridge Cargo crew got unusual indications on one of the GEnx-2B67 engines. Shut down, rejected take off, parts scattered on the runway. Indicating a possible uncontained engine failure.

http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm


At least this GEnx did not start a grass fire.

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1122 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 44227 times:

Well that would appear to answer the question about whether the AI incident was a one-off or not.

I believe there may be a market for no-doze and antacids at the GE engine plant.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 43921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seams more engines are failing lately cauld it be due to higher then normal production and the workers are getting a bit sloppy?


On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 43758 times:

Quoting tp1040 (Thread starter):
Indicating a possible uncontained engine failure.

No, if the engine parts come out the tail pipe, as they are suppose to, it is not an uncontained failure, it is a contained failure. If the parts come out the intake or the sides of the engine, then it is an uncontained failure.

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):
It seams more engines are failing lately cauld it be due to higher then normal production and the workers are getting a bit sloppy?

You may be onto something there. This is the second GEnx to fail, although one was the -1B and the other is a -2B. RR had an uncontained failure of a Trent-900 a few years ago on a QF A-380, and the Trent-1000 of the NH B-787s had to have their gear box replaced.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 43652 times:

Quoting tp1040 (Thread starter):
Shut down, rejected take off, parts scattered on the runway. Indicating a possible uncontained engine failure.

An uncontained failure requires that there be holes in the nacelle. It's very very easy to detect. The maintenance crew would see it almost instantly on a cursory inspection. The normal failure mode is for parts to go out the front (relatively unusual) or the back (very normal). Those are not uncontained failures.

Tom.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 43461 times:

I do not find it surprising that any radically new design engine should have a couple of hiccupIs; the one that surprised me was the GE90-110/115, which went an extraordinarily long time before the first failure. Infant mortality is common among electronic devices; I think it also applies to a lesser extent to mechanical products. If there is a defect in either manufacturing or design, it often shows up early.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 42730 times:

I just using JADEC's terminology and calling it a possible uncontained failure. Parts came out the back, but the report called it a possible UC engine failure due to the fact that exact details were unknown.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 42630 times:

So this is two GEnX engines having a failure. The -1B and -2B are very similar with mostly fan size being the difference, IIRC.

In my opinion, this suggests a design issue more than a manufacturing issue, although it is certainly possible that the failure was caused by a defective part common to both engines.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):

I do not find it surprising that any radically new design engine should have a couple of hiccupIs;

I think that spitting debris out the back indicates a bit more than a "hiccup."


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8773 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 42442 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
and the Trent-1000 of the NH B-787s had to have their gear box replaced.

And don't forget the Trent 1000 failure on a 787 testbed back in 2010.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-trent-1000-engine-failure-346215/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 42387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
The -1B and -2B are very similar with mostly fan size being the difference, IIRC.

Another major change was adding back two-thirds of the blades in the LPT (with PiP1 for the GEnx1B and as the baseline for the GEnx2B).


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 41733 times:

A design error should have been caught during testing? May it be some sort of material weakness, stuff like this happens.

Anyway this is bad, very bad and these two programs don't need any more delays or holdups.


User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 41435 times:

Truth is that engines are always pushing at the limits of technology yet we demand total reliability. One small problem could lead to huge delays in delivery and then who pays for such delays? Boeing have paid for the 787 delays but will GE pay for any 747-8 delays? Just think what will happen if RR find they're are late delivering the XWB for the A350! The cost could be monumental to RR. GE need to get a handle on this problem and quickly. A third event could lead to the 747-8 being grounded!

User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 41276 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
And don't forget the Trent 1000 failure on a 787 testbed back in 2010.

That was due to an engine being tested beyond design parameters.

Contrary to popular belief, RR engines are not prone to uncontained engine failures. Since 1994, there have only been three such RR failures: the T900 on the A380, a T700 HPT that failed on an Edelweiss A330 due to untested engine oil and an RB-211 in 1994 (not sure if -524 or -535).

Meanwhile the GE manufactured CF6, a very mature design, has been spitting out turbine parts (often spectacularly) on a yearly basis since it's introduction.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 41019 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 2):

It seams more engines are failing lately cauld it be due to higher then normal production and the workers are getting a bit sloppy?

Too many checks and balances for this to be the case. This would be the case if they made the jet engines in one day which I highly doubt.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineMaddogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 40948 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 12):

Didn't an RR powered Delta 777 have an uncontained failure a year or two ago on the runway in Atlanta?


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 40865 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
So this is two GEnX engines having a failure. The -1B and -2B are very similar with mostly fan size being the difference, IIRC.

In my opinion, this suggests a design issue more than a manufacturing issue, although it is certainly possible that the failure was caused by a defective part common to both engines.

Glad that both incidents occurred during take-off runs as opposed to in-flight.

The WSJ is now reporting this story and indicates the failure stems from the same problem as the July incident.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39841 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
The WSJ is now reporting this story and indicates the failure stems from the same problem as the July incident.

That article also says that GE has been testing all of the GEnx engines in service and that the Air Bridge Cargo bird was one of about a dozen that had not yet been tested. It also notes that GE is now applying a new coating to the engine shaft to protect the surface metal from corrosion and contamination.

So it sounds more like a materials issue than a design issue. As I noted up-thread, GE made major revisions to the LPT module for the GEnx2B and GEnx1B PIP1, but they were mostly to add back blades, vanes and injectors after examination proved GE had been too aggressive in reducing their count with the initial GEnx design.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1333 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39776 times:

Quoting MaddogJT8D (Reply 14):
Didn't an RR powered Delta 777 have an uncontained failure a year or two ago on the runway in Atlanta?

On 02JAN2009 a Delta 777 had a blade failure that caused a dent in the fuselage. It was powered by a Roll-Royce Trent 895-17 engine.

See http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20090105X01036&key=1 . ( ENG09IA002 )

Quote:
The examination of the right engine revealed one fan blade was fractured through the root section with the fractured dovetail section remaining in the fan disk’s blade slot. All of the remaining fan blades had hard body impact damage to the leading edges. An examination of the fan blades with an ultraviolet light did not result in any fluorescence. There were several holes through the inlet duct. The examination of the fuselage revealed a 3 1/2-inch diameter dent that was approximately 3/8-inch deep that was located forward of the 2R door just above the window belt, but below the Delta Air Lines company logo.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31573 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39571 times:

Uncontained or not......This is the 2nd time.......the cause of it needs to be asertained.....If its a design flaw then thats really sad news.....


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Please change the title. This looks to be, as others have noted, a contained failure.

Quoting starrion (Reply 1):
Well that would appear to answer the question about whether the AI incident was a one-off or not.

I believe there may be a market for no-doze and antacids at the GE engine plant.

  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):

No, if the engine parts come out the tail pipe, as they are suppose to, it is not an uncontained failure, it is a contained failure. If the parts come out the intake or the sides of the engine, then it is an uncontained failure.

Nitpick: Parts may go out the intake in a contained failure. I'm for the 'punctured nacelle' definition for uncontained.   

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
The WSJ is now reporting this story and indicates the failure stems from the same problem as the July incident.

Reuters, but lacks the detail of the WSJ noting the similar failure:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...gine-failure-idUSL1E8KDHDF20120913

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
As I noted up-thread, GE made major revisions to the LPT module for the GEnx2B and GEnx1B PIP1, but they were mostly to add back blades, vanes and injectors after examination proved GE had been too aggressive in reducing their count with the initial GEnx design.

Was the failed 787 powerplant a 'base engine' or and engine with the PIP?

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2011 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 39281 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
The WSJ is now reporting this story and indicates the failure stems from the same problem as the July incident

The same article also reported : A preliminary inspection revealed the damage was in the low-pressure turbine and was contained.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Was the failed 787 powerplant a 'base engine' or and engine with the PIP?

AFAIK It was a GEnx-1B (PIP1) engine.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 38214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747classic (Reply 20):
The same article also reported : A preliminary inspection revealed the damage was in the low-pressure turbine and was contained.

Still, this is not good. Hope GE will sort out the issue soon.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 38003 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 21):
Still, this is not good. Hope GE will sort out the issue soon.

They may already know. The WSJ article also mentioned that GE is applying a new coating to the engine shaft to protect the surface metal from corrosion and contamination.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 37348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone doubt that when these nuts fails that the low turbines destroy themselves fast enough to prevent a dangerous RPM in the low turbine?    Ok, I'm amused that GE's safety feature has proven itself twice. However, false positives are bad...

How I wish I knew the pedigree of the two failed engine nuts. How old was the nut that failed on each engine? Now, these are fan over-speed protection devices, so they must be designed to fail. But where these early build parts (time for corrosion), or from a certain batch (coating in question?).

Quoting 747classic (Reply 20):
AFAIK It was a GEnx-1B (PIP1) engine.

Thank you.

So did the connection change with the GEnX-2B and PIP1? e.g., a vendor or process change?

The failures only seem to happen with the newer low turbines. Is there a certain frequency in the new turbines that exacerbates any flaw in the nut? Or were the failures coincidence and one of the non-PIP1 GEnX-1B will spray a low turbine soon?   

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 22):
The WSJ article also mentioned that GE is applying a new coating to the engine shaft to protect the surface metal from corrosion and contamination.

I've seen coating changes dramatically increase part lives. By a factor of 8.

However, I would question the inspection process on the part too.

Here is a detailed question no one outside of GE/NATSB should know: Where on the nut is the failure happening. There are two cases. If they are at the same location, I would question an inherent manufacturing flaw too. Tolerances might need to become tighter.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 18):
the cause of it needs to be ascertained

GE is big on ROOT cause analysis. ETOPS 330 is riding on this. If GE can prove that what they were inspecting for was in the failed engine, then they will just move forward with their current plan. If this latest failure wouldn't have been found in the inspection, Scooby would say "Roh Roh."

Quoting 747classic (Reply 20):
A preliminary inspection revealed the damage was in the low-pressure turbine

   Yea, blades hitting stators do create a wee bit of damage.


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 36028 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 20):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Was the failed 787 powerplant a 'base engine' or and engine with the PIP?

AFAIK It was a GEnx-1B (PIP1) engine.

I may be wrong... But I thought the GEnx-2b has not yet received a PIP. My understanding was that 1st PIP for the GEnx-2b would available in Q3 2013. And it would be based on the 1st PIP (already in service on the 787) and the 2nd PIP (later this year) from the GEnx-1b?

I remember this form the Cargolux dispute... anyway, I could be wrong?   



harder than woodpecker lips...
25 KC135TopBoom : Why? One event was on a B-787 and this one is on a B-747. Two different airplanes with two different versions of the engine, with different thrust. T
26 tdscanuck : How does this suggest a design issue? These aren't the high time engines...in fact, they're low time engines relative to the fleet leaders. That very
27 BoeingVista : Tested or inspected? What exactly would GE be testing for. Maybe GE stress calculations are just wrong, as you would know in engineering sometimes yo
28 Stitch : The GEnx2B entered service with the revised LPT that was introduced with PIP1 on the GEnx1B. The article merely said "tested".
29 BlueSky1976 : GE90-115 had quite a number of in-flight shut downs during its infancy with forced emergency landings. The most famous one was with AF 777-300ER in S
30 Post contains links mffoda : I'm not doubting you Stitch... Its just I can't find anything when I google "GEnx-2b PIP certification"?? The nearest thing regarding the PIP's comes
31 sweair : I have a hunch its some sort of metallurgic problem, composition of a certain batch of metal maybe differing from the norm.
32 Post contains links 747classic : The GEnx-2B (747-8 series) had the low pressure turbine update already from the start. The next and so far the only scheduled update (called PIP) is s
33 OzGlobal : Really, the A380 Trent 9000 incident was clear poor quality of manufacture and sloppy workmanship.
34 HAWK21M : Would a month be an ideal time frame to get a detailed investigative report of the snag or would 3 months be more realistic.
35 Stitch : As 747classic noted, the GEnx2B had the new LPT from the start - it was not retrofitted via a PIP.
36 Post contains images lightsaber : I wouldn't say wrong, I would say a missed assumption such as a harmonic. Changing the number of turbine blades will change the harmonics. And Rotor
37 Post contains links 747classic : NTSB Urgent Recommendation to FAA : Inspect GEnx Fan Mid Shafts Immediately . See aviation week : http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...23f09a-5cc4-4
38 cf6ppe : Thank you for the second link... Reading the NTSB doc (on a Friday afternoon) brought back memories of Emergency Airworthiness Directives being issue
39 PW100 : Apologies if this is too extensive or in-depth, but this is what I find really fascinating, as a turbine engine nut(case), as some call me . . .. Thes
40 Post contains links and images KELPkid : I started a thread that deals with this one issue (that of the NTSB recommendations): Ntsb Issues Recommendations RE: GEnx Failures (by KELPkid Sep 1
41 Post contains links mffoda : So here is the latest form FG on this matter. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...enx-powered-787-and-747-8s-376525/ "The recommendations issued by
42 Stitch : So looks like they know what's causing it and have a fix. Any idea if the part can be swapped in the field?
43 Post contains images mffoda : Stitch, are you directing that question at me? Because, I was just outside re-coating a couple of dozen Fan mid-shaft's... but it started to rain. So
44 BoeingVista : I think its a bit early to say that they have a fix, shafts with the new coating will (should) have to undergo at least as much testing as they devot
45 mffoda : This sounds very similar to the Trent1000 gearbox issue regarding corrosion in some crown gears. Granted not in the same location, but the new coatin
46 BoeingVista : I think that the Trent issue was flakes of coating departing from gears, here we have a totally different issue which appears to be "hydrogen" induce
47 Post contains images ferpe : After reading the NTSB letter I can understand them, the ultrasound method that GE has developed can detect cracks which has grown to 0.05 inch. That
48 PW100 : Correct. The running time of the engine is unrelated to crack initiation. It appears that we have to distinguish two phenomena: crack initiation, and
49 goosebayguy : No chance of ETOPs for a while here.
50 BoeingVista : I agree that 3 incidents should be enough for the FAA to do something but they seem to be taking the weekend off, they have even ordered the inspecti
51 sweair : I may not have been wrong about it being a metallurgical issue, this is advanced stuff and on the nano level, chrystal forms and particle alignments e
52 747classic : According the rules : If ExTended OPerationS (ETOPS) is revoked for all GEnx powered aircraft, operated under part 121 and 135 : - The 787/GE will be
53 sweair : How would RR follow this? If something like this happens do competitors follow closely and check their own gear? I can imagine materials and some part
54 BoeingVista : You know I wouldn't think that they were that similar because all of the parts and materials are propriety and most probably under patents. Shaft ass
55 tdscanuck : The NTSB can't do either of those things. The NTSB can only recomment; the FAA is the one who has to take action. It will be both. Environmental crac
56 BoeingVista : Yes, true and here's the thing, the NTSB have recommended that these engines are inspected before they are allowed to fly and the FAA has remained si
57 Stitch : It's not unheard of. The FAA has dual mandates - both to protect US aviation and to promote it. So calling for a grounding of the GEnx is going to im
58 kanban : I suspect that one of the reasons this didn't show up earlier was GE having too much inventory manufactured head of time that sat on shelves quietly c
59 PW100 : That should read catastrophic in terms of engine destruction, not at airframe level. Sorry for not being more clear. I'm not sure if I agree with thi
60 tdscanuck : Not particularly. The NTSB, properly, has only one mandate: find out what happened and determine what you'd do to prevent it happening again. They ha
61 Post contains images lightsaber : I think we can agree that is required. I would think the insurance companies wouldn't ignore this one! Ruh roh. Not a warm fuzzy feeling. I see I'm n
62 qantasguy : Those of us old enough may remember the teething problems with the JT9 on the first 747s. Multiple failures and even a bent shaft. There was also an "
63 Post contains links Revelation : According to http://www.eaa.org/govt/default_Mar_2011.asp that is no longer true:
64 Post contains links tdscanuck : According to the FAA as of about 2 minutes ago: "Our mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." http://www.faa.
65 Daysleeper : I wonder what they mean exactly by "efficient" - For instance, if they did happen to learn of a serious problem with a US Airline, but fixing it woul
66 ricknroll : According to Ben Sandilands "A broader issue arising from the urgent alert (which has the same legal liability effect as an order to comply) is its p
67 ferpe : Re the ultrasound measurement method, according to NTSB GE have now measured through all engines except some freighter ones. This is in some 6 weeks o
68 tdscanuck : They basically mean "acceptable trade between safety and cost." It drives most people nuts to think about, but that's how the whole industry actually
69 Post contains links and images ferpe : What do you mean with the tower shaft? The shaft picking up the power to the gearbox? I found a picture that I think is accurate, it is from a 3D ani
70 Post contains links and images ferpe : There are others that have found the shaft in isolation: I guess it is called the middle fan shaft as there is a part going on it aft of the LPT mount
71 BoeingVista : I think that your red arrow is in the wrong place, the nut and FMS join point is the front taper parallel with the LP fan stators probably 1m into th
72 tdscanuck : Yes. I think the forward bearing provides forward and aft restraint; when the axle goes the turbine is free to move forward or back in a mechanical s
73 ferpe : Might very well be but then the second picture group is wrong as well (I did not make that, found it on the internet). As I understand it there is on
74 Post contains images ferpe : That would require the axial bearing to be in front of the shaft failure, I think the bearing is behind. It is sitting on the area with the changed d
75 ferpe : I think we might be mislead by the NTSB/GE nomenclature and the assembly video. NTSB talk of a Fan Midshaft (FMS) failure, IMO this stand for the engi
76 Tristarsteve : Not always. In 1980 I worked for a Tristar operator with RB211-524 engines. We had a small engine shop who changed the 04 (HP comp and turbine) and t
77 Post contains links and images ferpe : So, think I've cracked it, we are all correct (except for the 3D artist but then what do you expect ). The LP spool "shaft" from front to back is divi
78 Post contains images BoeingVista : That would be me that posted the original Yup, what he said! Yeah about 1m in straight down the middle access would seem to be reasonable, presumably
79 Post contains links cf6ppe : Please reference the following link from the first thread: Debris From B787 Engine Sparks Fire In S.C. Debris From B787 Engine Sparks Fire In S.C. (by
80 Post contains links and images ferpe : Thanks, you seem to be in the know . The GEnx, GE90 and GP7000 all share the same design principle. I found a high res cutout of the GP7000 which sho
81 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks for reminding me, I realize I missed quite some information there , sorry for all the duplication. Anyway it resulted in a good cutaway that w
82 Post contains links trex8 : Not sure if this has been linked on any other thread http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...enx-powered-787-and-747-8s-376525/
83 AirlineCritic : So they are calling for grounding before inspections are done. Interesting.
84 Post contains links 747classic : All active GEnx engines have completed the initial checks, ahead of the completion of a FAA AD. " GE has developed a field ultrasonic method to inspec
85 Post contains links 747classic : Here is the proposed GEnx FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) , with a 90 day inspection interval, after the initial inspection, covered in a General Ele
86 Post contains links WarpSpeed : Muddied waters: apparently the Shanghai incident is not the same as the cracked mid-shaft experienced in Charleston... http://seattletimes.com/html/bu
87 DocLightning : Uh-oh, that sounds like bad-news bears. Two different issues that caused complete destruction of two brand-new engines?
88 Post contains links Stitch : As aeroblogger noted in the 787 production thread, the FAA has issued an AD for the GEnx series of engines - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-09-2
89 Post contains links BoeingVista : A more user friendly link http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...57a800043d51f/$FILE/2012-19-08.pdf For the TLDR crowd ultrasound inspections are man
90 Post contains links 747classic : Here is the latest official press release of the NTSB : No cracked Fan Mid Shaft (FMS) was found on the GEnx-2B engine, that failed in Shanghai. The e
91 Post contains links BoeingVista : It was a bit early, try this link... Link I assume that the engine has been shipped back stateside for the teardown.
92 Post contains links 747classic : Safety Board Suspects Improper Turbine Assembly In GEnx-2B Failure. Closer inspection of the General Electric GEnx-2B engine that failed last month on
93 Post contains links BoeingVista : And of course this means another GE Service bulitin.. http://professional.wsj.com/article/...mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
94 Post contains links 747classic : General Electric has ordered inspections on all 120 GEnx engines operating on Boeing 747-8s and 787s to check for installation errors of a component t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ntsb Seeks Help On WN Uncontained Engine Failure posted Wed Dec 19 2007 14:41:34 by N471WN
Skymark B767 Suffers Uncontained Engine Failure posted Sat Dec 3 2005 19:45:47 by Dogfighter2111
Uncontained Engine Failure On F100, MD-80, Etc posted Thu Apr 4 2002 19:39:13 by AM744
Contained & Uncontained Engine Failure posted Thu Jun 21 2001 04:20:46 by Trickijedi
FI: Uncontained Engine Rotor Failure On Trent 1000 posted Mon Aug 16 2010 11:39:02 by SSPhoenix
Evergreen 747 Divert To LHR With Engine Failure posted Sun Apr 25 2004 00:04:44 by Leezyjet
QF32 Engine Failure , A Book By The Captain. posted Sat Jul 7 2012 19:29:53 by sunrisevalley
4/19 DL1063 JFK-LAX Bird Strike W/ Engine Failure posted Thu Apr 19 2012 14:40:08 by catiii
Pictures Of An Uncontained PW4056 Engine Failure. posted Thu Nov 3 2011 02:21:15 by 747classic
Another Taag 777 Engine Failure... posted Thu Dec 23 2010 19:21:51 by MHTripple7