Airliners.net

Today, an S7 Airlines A321NEO VQ-BGR flying DME-AER suffered an inflight incident. During the climb at 3000 meters one of the engines shut off. The plane then returned safely back to DME.
https://ria.ru/20181223/1548519113.html (Russian)

What type of engine was it?

Newbiepilot wrote:

What type of engine was it?

Pratt

And........... BA's A321N G-NEOR has been stuck in AMS for 24 hours.

Newbiepilot wrote:

What type of engine was it?

Pratts

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

And that’s why they have two of the damned things

FriscoHeavy wrote:

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

You don’t...

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

Comparing apples to tires. This is engine related and actually both types of engine on both planes have been chewing themselves up prematurely. The MAX issue is the plane having engines too big for the plane installed in the cheapest way possible throwing the flight characteristics out of whack and having to install a system to fix this, a system that clearly is not even close to fool proof, and not telling anyone about it presumably to speed up certification........

We have to wait for the investigations, but the incidents so far did not involve the gear. The gear seems to be bulletproof.
There have been several seal problems, but seals should be manageable. Pratt builds fighter engines including the ones for the F22 and F35 (the most powerful fighter engine), which are much harder on seals, etc. Pratt should be able to get this under control. But if Pratt shipped a couple of years of engines with these problems, it will be quite a while before they can put everything behind them.

I think fighter jet engines are probably stressed differently in combat when compared to civil airliners that operate 10 or more hours per day. Besides, PW has to balance the performance of civil engines with making them at an economic cost. The design and engineering optimisations might be different.

jagraham wrote:

We have to wait for the investigations, but the incidents so far did not involve the gear. The gear seems to be bulletproof

Honestly...
At this stage, it almost seems that's the only thing they bothered to design properly on this engine.

They'll work all the kinks out eventually but man, this is painful to watch.

factsonly wrote:

And........... BA's A321N G-NEOR has been stuck in AMS for 24 hours.

I thought BA had ordered the LEAP engine.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

What type of engine was it?

Pratts

Aren't they a LEAP customer?

smartplane wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

What type of engine was it?

Pratts

Aren't they a LEAP customer?

Yes, for their 737Maxs . Their A32Xneos are Pratt powered.

Francoflier wrote:

jagraham wrote:

We have to wait for the investigations, but the incidents so far did not involve the gear. The gear seems to be bulletproof

Honestly...
At this stage, it almost seems that's the only thing they bothered to design properly on this engine.

They'll work all the kinks out eventually but man, this is painful to watch.

Very painful indeed!

flee wrote:

I think fighter jet engines are probably stressed differently in combat when compared to civil airliners that operate 10 or more hours per day. Besides, PW has to balance the performance of civil engines with making them at an economic cost. The design and engineering optimisations might be different.

Fighter engines are stressed differently. Stresses are higher.
For commercial engines, one would expect problems to look like the coating issues on LEAP engines. The coatings come off much too early, but in a predictable fashion. And an inspectable one. So a batch of LEAP engines are not making their time-on-wing promises (which amounted to about 9 years until the first shop visit was supposed to be needed), but there are not a rash of in-flight shutdowns . .
In any case, the fact still is that if Pratt can properly seal F100s, F119s, and F135s, they should be able to seal a GTF. I would not be surprised to find that Pratt was making an economic tradeoff that got them into this mess . .

StTim wrote:

factsonly wrote:

And........... BA's A321N G-NEOR has been stuck in AMS for 24 hours.

I thought BA had ordered the LEAP engine.

Yes,

BA's A321NEO G-NEOR has CFM LEAPs

S7's A321NEO VQ-BGR has Pratts

Competency erosion due to the experienced retiring, and new staff have not had a program to properly train on?

marcelh wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

You don’t...

I am kidding. I love all planes, including Airbus products.

767333ER wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

Comparing apples to tires. This is engine related and actually both types of engine on both planes have been chewing themselves up prematurely. The MAX issue is the plane having engines too big for the plane installed in the cheapest way possible throwing the flight characteristics out of whack and having to install a system to fix this, a system that clearly is not even close to fool proof, and not telling anyone about it presumably to speed up certification........

I know, I know. Calm down. It was just a joke. It’s not a direct comparison at all. The point is, anytime something happens to a 737, of any flavor, the fangs come out with ridiculous statements.

I guess you missed the whole part about saying I was kidding.

aviatorcraig wrote:

StTim wrote:

factsonly wrote:

And........... BA's A321N G-NEOR has been stuck in AMS for 24 hours.

I thought BA had ordered the LEAP engine.

Yes,

BA's A321NEO G-NEOR has CFM LEAPs

S7's A321NEO VQ-BGR has Pratts

Excuse me but where does it say that G-NEOR has engine issues? He could have so much more technical issues that could not be linked with the engines.

767333ER wrote:

The MAX issue is the plane having engines too big for the plane installed in the cheapest way possible throwing the flight characteristics out of whack and having to install a system to fix this, a system that clearly is not even close to fool proof, and not telling anyone about it presumably to speed up certification........

I would add, "In a compressed time frame with a single point of failure, and not consistent with the company's design philosophy for its entire history."

LDRA wrote:

Competency erosion due to the experienced retiring, and new staff have not had a program to properly train on?

This makes perfect sense. If you think about it, until a few years ago, there hadn't been a new NB engine design since the V2500 in 1988.

The 90s and 2000's really were the malaise period for aviation.

I've said it before and I've said it again: it appears that PW has forgotten how to build engines. They knocked the gearbox out of the park but the rotor bow, the bearings, the turbine casing, and now the seals? And the kicker is that they don't seem to even have fixes for half these problems. We're a month shy of three years after EIS now. These can't be called "teething problems."

I was really excited about this engine. I think that the GTF design offers enormous promise in the future of aviation. But you still need to be able to build the rest of the engine. PW should sell the gearbox to GE, who can use their advanced understanding of high-temperature materials to maybe make a truly world-beating engine with better performance, efficiency, and reliability than either OEM alone.

Panagiotis wrote:

aviatorcraig wrote:

StTim wrote:

I thought BA had ordered the LEAP engine.

Yes,

BA's A321NEO G-NEOR has CFM LEAPs

S7's A321NEO VQ-BGR has Pratts

Excuse me but where does it say that G-NEOR has engine issues? He could have so much more technical issues that could not be linked with the engines.

It doesn't. I was just confirming which engines it had as this was questioned further up the thread.
thebasource.com simply says "the return BA439 was cancelled due to a technical issue". Could be anything.

DocLightning wrote:

I was really excited about this engine. I think that the GTF design offers enormous promise in the future of aviation. But you still need to be able to build the rest of the engine. PW should sell the gearbox to GE, who can use their advanced understanding of high-temperature materials to maybe make a truly world-beating engine with better performance, efficiency, and reliability than either OEM alone.

A bit off topic - but wouldn't it be awesome if a GP5xxx engine combining the LEAP core and PW gearbox be made for a Neo2?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

Only if a 6 month old NEO nose dived into the ocean at -33,000FPM.

Didn't GE buy the Italian company that makes the gearboxes for P&W?
If MOM actually happens that would be the perfect opportunity for someone (else) to offer a new geared engine.
Have to wait and see what caused this particular incident/shutdown.I really hope it's not bearings again.If a pattern emerges here they will be in deep doo doo.Means the whole engine is out of balance.Not something you can retrospectively change imho.

1989worstyear wrote:

LDRA wrote:

Competency erosion due to the experienced retiring, and new staff have not had a program to properly train on?

This makes perfect sense. If you think about it, until a few years ago, there hadn't been a new NB engine design since the V2500 in 1988.

The 90s and 2000's really were the malaise period for aviation.

Perhaps you are unaware of the PW6000 and BR700, but neither were produced at the scale of the CFM engines. Pratt has been number 2 for a while in the narrowbody engine category.

parapente wrote:

Didn't GE buy the Italian company that makes the gearboxes for P&W?
If MOM actually happens that would be the perfect opportunity for someone (else) to offer a new geared engine.
Have to wait and see what caused this particular incident/shutdown.I really hope it's not bearings again.If a pattern emerges here they will be in deep doo doo.Means the whole engine is out of balance.Not something you can retrospectively change imho.

More than 110 neo pratt engines have had premature failures in the last 18 months. So many passanger planes being forced to fly with single planes. The poor customers are stuck as they can't replace these engines with reliable models.
Airlines will take concrete action only after their is a unfortunate incident and then will get blamed for knowingly flying planes with defective engines.

As an airline pilotfor 30 years, I have no clue who is “s7” speak in normal language please...

reltney wrote:

As an airline pilotfor 30 years, I have no clue who is “s7” speak in normal language please...

S7 is S7 airlines based out of Russia.

This is the least cryptic airline code of them all

CLTRampRat wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

Only if a 6 month old NEO nose dived into the ocean at -33,000FPM.

I'm glad knee jerk reactions like this dont rule aviation. Did you want to ground all a330s after AF 447 before the investigation was complete too?

Time to withdraw the ETOPS certification for the PWs.

Samsung withdrew more than a million note 7s after just 35 of them overheated. In comparison these PW engines have had more than 110 failures in a year and half and counting.

parapente wrote:

Didn't GE buy the Italian company that makes the gearboxes for P&W?

AVIO.
GE bought AVIO.
They are involved in the TP400D6 gearbox ( and its issues ).
No idea if those issues are linked to "enemy action".

There was a reason when Airbus during the NEO gestation strongly made it known
that they would prefer the GTF engine be done by the Original IAE setup.
But P&W bought out RR. They still have good partners.
Could it be that P&W ( resp. UTC ) management didn't listen to those?
We had this UTC top brass guy spouting about "less investment and reaping profits"
just when the industrialization phase became hot and needed funding ( insight after the fact ).

reltney wrote:

As an airline pilotfor 30 years, I have no clue who is “s7” speak in normal language please...

It is called S7 Siberian Airlines but nowadays only use the S7 - probably sounds more trendy. They are a big airline now.

WIederling wrote:

parapente wrote:

Didn't GE buy the Italian company that makes the gearboxes for P&W?

AVIO.
GE bought AVIO.
They are involved in the TP400D6 gearbox ( and its issues ).
No idea if those issues are linked to "enemy action".

There was a reason when Airbus during the NEO gestation strongly made it known
that they would prefer the GTF engine be done by the Original IAE setup.
But P&W bought out RR. They still have good partners.

Though PW bought out RR interests in IAE, there is still a very close, if not closer relationship than previously between the two, and not just because of current shared adversity.

CRJ900 wrote:

It is called S7 Siberian Airlines but nowadays only use the S7 - probably sounds more trendy. They are a big airline now.

They are also the World's largest consumer of green aviation paint!

If Airbus wish to talk about XLR's or 322's etc at the Paris air show,P&W really need to have sorted all these reoccurring issues by then imho.They have 6 months...

DocLightning wrote:

I've said it before and I've said it again: it appears that PW has forgotten how to build engines. They knocked the gearbox out of the park but the rotor bow, the bearings, the turbine casing, and now the seals? And the kicker is that they don't seem to even have fixes for half these problems. We're a month shy of three years after EIS now. These can't be called "teething problems."

I was really excited about this engine. I think that the GTF design offers enormous promise in the future of aviation. But you still need to be able to build the rest of the engine. PW should sell the gearbox to GE, who can use their advanced understanding of high-temperature materials to maybe make a truly world-beating engine with better performance, efficiency, and reliability than either OEM alone.

I think Build is a key word. There are both design and manufacturing issues. One shutdown was traced to: “During a teardown inspection of the failed engine, it was found that the permanent magnetic alternator (PMA) rotor was "installed out-of-position axially and circumferentially" on the PMA gear shaft. This generated foreign object debris over time and resulted in the chip warning and the subsequent engine shutdown.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ig-452766/

FriscoHeavy wrote:

767333ER wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Uh oh. Was the NEO one step too far? The whole NEO fleet with Pratts should be grounded.

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

Comparing apples to tires. This is engine related and actually both types of engine on both planes have been chewing themselves up prematurely. The MAX issue is the plane having engines too big for the plane installed in the cheapest way possible throwing the flight characteristics out of whack and having to install a system to fix this, a system that clearly is not even close to fool proof, and not telling anyone about it presumably to speed up certification........

I know, I know. Calm down. It was just a joke. It’s not a direct comparison at all. The point is, anytime something happens to a 737, of any flavor, the fangs come out with ridiculous statements.

I guess you missed the whole part about saying I was kidding.

Missed it? It went right over their heads. Many of these fanboys are this vs that and have NO idea of the similarities or the differences. This engine didn't Just fail.
It's probably been giving indications of going south for a while now and they either missed the indications or they don't do trend analysis at all. Engines do NOT just go south all at once. More than likely they would have seen arise or drop in the Ps 3 or Ps4 pressure an uptick in the EGT or TIT which might have indicated that something had shifted in the engine performance. Unless the engine takes a hit to the compressor? It's rare that an engine just up and fails.

StTim wrote:

factsonly wrote:

And........... BA's A321N G-NEOR has been stuck in AMS for 24 hours.

I thought BA had ordered the LEAP engine.

BA has LEAP engines on their neo's. But LEAP is also having teething issues from the new tech. Just everyone is ignoring it for the giant Pratt practice target on the A320's.

seahawk wrote:

Time to withdraw the ETOPS certification for the PWs.

Why? It happens relatively often that an engine shuts down, and well, they fix it. You can't make a thread out of everything

Newbiepilot wrote:

One shutdown was traced to: “During a teardown inspection of the failed engine, it was found that the permanent magnetic alternator (PMA) rotor was "installed out-of-position axially and circumferentially" on the PMA gear shaft. This generated foreign object debris over time and resulted in the chip warning and the subsequent engine shutdown.”

lack of grocking.
cubicle mind.
you find that to be an increasing issue.

rotor /stator combis using strong magnets are a pita to assemble.
If your design ( basic, assembly, use, MX ) team doesn't grasp
the difference ...

FriscoHeavy wrote:

marcelh wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

I kid of course, but this is the the type of response you’d get if it happened to the MAX.

You don’t...

I am kidding. I love all planes, including Airbus products.

Is it odd I miss the 737-200?

strfyr51 wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

767333ER wrote:

Comparing apples to tires. This is engine related and actually both types of engine on both planes have been chewing themselves up prematurely. The MAX issue is the plane having engines too big for the plane installed in the cheapest way possible throwing the flight characteristics out of whack and having to install a system to fix this, a system that clearly is not even close to fool proof, and not telling anyone about it presumably to speed up certification........

I know, I know. Calm down. It was just a joke. It’s not a direct comparison at all. The point is, anytime something happens to a 737, of any flavor, the fangs come out with ridiculous statements.

I guess you missed the whole part about saying I was kidding.

Missed it? It went right over their heads. Many of these fanboys are this vs that and have NO idea of the similarities or the differences. This engine didn't Just fail.
It's probably been giving indications of going south for a while now and they either missed the indications or they don't do trend analysis at all. Engines do NOT just go south all at once. More than likely they would have seen arise or drop in the Ps 3 or Ps4 pressure an uptick in the EGT or TIT which might have indicated that something had shifted in the engine performance. Unless the engine takes a hit to the compressor? It's rare that an engine just up and fails.

True, usually if it just up and fails it does so in a spectacular way that we will all notice.

scbriml wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

It is called S7 Siberian Airlines but nowadays only use the S7 - probably sounds more trendy. They are a big airline now.

They are also the World's largest consumer of green aviation paint!

True even Green Africa Airways uses less green paint.

LewisNEO wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Time to withdraw the ETOPS certification for the PWs.

Why? It happens relatively often that an engine shuts down, and well, they fix it. You can't make a thread out of everything

ETOPs requires a statistic likelihood of engine shut downs to be met. I doubt that the real life data matches the expectations at the moment.