Another PW engine fails in A320 Neo aircraft

maint123 · Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:04 am

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo ... 279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

Newbiepilot · Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:56 am

Didn’t we already have a thread on this? I couldn’t find it but remember an A320neo inflight shutdown thread a few days ago.

reltney · Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:58 am

Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

LDRA · Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:00 am

What actually failed?

maint123 · Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:12 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Didn’t we already have a thread on this? I couldn’t find it but remember an A320neo inflight shutdown thread a few days ago.

That was a different one.
PW engines in neo's fail every week.

anshabhi · Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:31 am

This aircraft has been grounded since 6 days now, as Port Blair is an island

unrave · Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:37 am

At what point do IndiGo lose their patience and switch to CFM? The silver lining is that, but for the smoke in the cabin incident earlier this month, all engine failures with IndiGo have been with aircraft delivered prior to November 2017, which suggests that the corrective measures employed by PW are indeed working.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:51 am

maint123 wrote:
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo-aircraft-faces-mid-air-engine-failure/articleshow/67279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

To say the airlines don’t care is just your interpretation of something you really don’t understand. Airlines do care about delays, customer complaints, and inflight shutdowns making the news. I understand that its easy to make baseless emotional claims but the reality is that the compensation offered by PW - whatever that may be - does not make it all better.

anshabhi · Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:16 am

unrave wrote:
At what point do IndiGo lose their patience and switch to CFM? The silver lining is that, but for the smoke in the cabin incident earlier this month, all engine failures with IndiGo have been with aircraft delivered prior to November 2017, which suggests that the corrective measures employed by PW are indeed working.

Never. I think PW paid more money as compensation to 6E in 2016-17, than what it would have earned by flying the aircraft.
https://indianexpress.com/article/busin ... e-4918264/
Its a lot of inconvenience for pax though

maint123 · Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:49 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
maint123 wrote:
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo-aircraft-faces-mid-air-engine-failure/articleshow/67279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

To say the airlines don’t care is just your interpretation of something you really don’t understand. Airlines do care about delays, customer complaints, and inflight shutdowns making the news. I understand that its easy to make baseless emotional claims but the reality is that the compensation offered by PW - whatever that may be - does not make it all better.

I am only worried about safety. With hundreds of flights per month, what's the probability that both the PW engines eventually fail?
Airbus will wash their hands off as customers chose the engines and PW will claim that we didn't force the customer to fly if they felt unsafe.
As I have previously pointed out, 30 odd overheating note 7 phones resulted in recall of more than a million. In comparison more than 120 PW engines have failed.
What will it take to bell this cat ?

robsaw · Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:43 pm

maint123 wrote:
I am only worried about safety. With hundreds of flights per month, what's the probability that both the PW engines eventually fail?
Airbus will wash their hands off as customers chose the engines and PW will claim that we didn't force the customer to fly if they felt unsafe.
As I have previously pointed out, 30 odd overheating note 7 phones resulted in recall of more than a million. In comparison more than 120 PW engines have failed.
What will it take to bell this cat ?

Your reply represents a gross lack of understanding of aviation safety. Neither the airline, the aircraft manufacturer, nor the engine supplier can "wash their hands" in an engine-related safety incident. Safety management is NOT based on "feelings".

SelseyBill · Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:04 pm

reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

LOL.......too funny !!!!

FriscoHeavy · Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:26 pm

maint123 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
maint123 wrote:
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo-aircraft-faces-mid-air-engine-failure/articleshow/67279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

To say the airlines don’t care is just your interpretation of something you really don’t understand. Airlines do care about delays, customer complaints, and inflight shutdowns making the news. I understand that its easy to make baseless emotional claims but the reality is that the compensation offered by PW - whatever that may be - does not make it all better.

I am only worried about safety. With hundreds of flights per month, what's the probability that both the PW engines eventually fail?
Airbus will wash their hands off as customers chose the engines and PW will claim that we didn't force the customer to fly if they felt unsafe.
As I have previously pointed out, 30 odd overheating note 7 phones resulted in recall of more than a million. In comparison more than 120 PW engines have failed.
What will it take to bell this cat ?

Why is every one of your posts and responses so drama filled, the sky is faling, etc?

You do yourself a disservice and lose credibility when you try to create drama, when it’s not necessary.

There appears to be some ongoing teething issues with the engine, but to characterize it as unsafe shows your lack of aviation knowledge. I would hesitate to fly one right this second.

Instead of listening to a lot of the wise folks on here, you make each subsequent post more dramatic than the next.

Sit back, listen to people on here and learn a bit. It’s much more enjoyable for everyone.

Cheers,

exFWAOONW · Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:48 pm

Go read some history. Teething issues are nothing new in aviation or any industry you can name. You can not duplicate every possible operating environment or condition in prototype testing. Best you can hope for is catching the big gotchas.

Newbiepilot · Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:21 pm

maint123 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
maint123 wrote:
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo-aircraft-faces-mid-air-engine-failure/articleshow/67279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

To say the airlines don’t care is just your interpretation of something you really don’t understand. Airlines do care about delays, customer complaints, and inflight shutdowns making the news. I understand that its easy to make baseless emotional claims but the reality is that the compensation offered by PW - whatever that may be - does not make it all better.

I am only worried about safety. With hundreds of flights per month, what's the probability that both the PW engines eventually fail?
Airbus will wash their hands off as customers chose the engines and PW will claim that we didn't force the customer to fly if they felt unsafe.
As I have previously pointed out, 30 odd overheating note 7 phones resulted in recall of more than a million. In comparison more than 120 PW engines have failed.
What will it take to bell this cat ?

The requirements in FAR 25.1309 for a catastrophic failure are 1 in 1 Billion Flight Hours. If the probability of a dual engine failure was that high or even close, the airplane would not be certifiable. Airlines care, Airbus Cares, PW cares, Regulatory Authorities Care. The manufacturers, regulatory authorities and airlines are all partners in safety. No one washes their hands and pays off their responsibility through compensation. I assume you are unfamiliar with the service difficulty reporting process as well as the continued airworthiness and surveillance systems reports that airlines generate and provide to the regulators. It’s a robust process that works.

exFWAOONW wrote:
Go read some history. Teething issues are nothing new in aviation or any industry you can name. You can not duplicate every possible operating environment or condition in prototype testing. Best you can hope for is catching the big gotchas.

There is a difference between normal teething and what we have seen with some recent engines. I recognize teething, but the PW1100G certainly has had a number of problems which is getting the regulators attention. FAA and EASA have approved ETOPS for the A320neo but the DGCA has not due to all the in flight shutdowns. Not being permitted to fly ETOPS is more than teething from my perspective, but it is up to interpretation.

India’s aviation regulator has refused to relent on the increased scrutiny of Airbus A320neo planes fitted with the troubled Pratt & Whitney (P&W) engines that have on occasion stopped working midflight and forced the grounding of aircraft belonging to IndiGoNSE 1.26 % and GoAir. This means these planes can’t be used on international routes, said people with knowledge of the matter.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said it wants to see how the engines perform before deciding on the demand by IndiGo, the country’s biggest carrier, they said.

“The DGCA would monitor the performance of the neo (P&W) engines for at least three-four months after the replacement of combustion chamber Block B with combustion chamber Block C in the existing engines,” said a senior aviation ministry official. Planes with the engines are currently restricted to routes where an alternative airport is 60 minutes away. IndiGo wanted this Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) limit doubled to 120 minutes, so the planes could fly overseas, said the people. P&W has said that the US aviation regulator has allowed the EDTO limit for planes with these engines to be increased to 120 minutes.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 662698.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indigo-to-dgca-remove-route-curbs-on-a320-neo-planes/articleshow/66309420.cms

DocLightning · Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:36 pm

reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

Welcome to 2018.

Pratt & Whitney, once one of the foremost aircraft engine manufacturers in the world, a company with almost hundred years of history, a country that has powered some of the most iconic flights of all times, a company that built an engine that can accelerate through Mach 1 while flying straight up, seems to have forgotten how to design and build an engine. They messed up the casing, forgot to account for rotor bow, the bearings, and the seals. The only thing they haven't messed up is the planetary gearbox.

I was a fanboy, but it's awfully hard lately.

It has been three years since EIS and these issues are still not worked out. This isn't "teething." This is incompetence.

Natflyer · Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:56 pm

Its not like CFM hasn´t had its issues. A lot of Leap-1B engines being replaced just a few months old.

vadodara · Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:15 pm

Not handled particularly well either by PW or 6E. 6E’s CEO paid the price for this.

One thing the airline could have done is to restrict the flights between its hubs/focus cities to restrict the problem from spreading.

As someone pointed out, the latest failure is in Andaman Islands and not that easy to find replacement engine.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:52 pm

maint123 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
maint123 wrote:
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/indigo-aircraft-faces-mid-air-engine-failure/articleshow/67279870.cms

Cant copy paste for some reason. Gist is -

Flight from Port Blair to Kolkata.
Pilot observed low oil pressure in engine no 2 and turned back on 1 engine.
3rd incident this month concerning PW engines on neo by memory.
PW lowering temperature of combustion chamber by 40 deg c to tackle similar issues.

PW engines are a joke. They are making changes to the engine of a passenger plane literally on the fly.
And the Indian Air flight safety overseeing dept should be held responsible in case of a mishap for still allowing these planes to fly.
The airlines don't care as they are being compensated by PW.
Who cares about the 100 (approx neo engine flight failures) x 200 = 20000 passengers who have been inconvenienced in the last 1 year ?

To say the airlines don’t care is just your interpretation of something you really don’t understand. Airlines do care about delays, customer complaints, and inflight shutdowns making the news. I understand that its easy to make baseless emotional claims but the reality is that the compensation offered by PW - whatever that may be - does not make it all better.

I am only worried about safety. With hundreds of flights per month, what's the probability that both the PW engines eventually fail?

Not sure, why don’t you tell me?

jupiter2 · Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:43 pm

How many people here would willingly get on, with no reservations whatsoever, on a PW powered NEO, especially on a long over water sector ?

Personally, I would much rather a CEO or CFM powered NEO. I know statistically it is improbable to experience a dual engine failure on a twin, personally I don't want to experience an engine failure on any aircraft I'm on at all, but at the rate that the PW NEO's experience engine shut downs, the less improbable that statistic becomes. I'm not one for doom and gloom, but these problems have been going on for years, they really should've been sorted out by now. It just seems that PW identify the solution to one of the problems and another then pops up, it appears to be a never ending game of catch up, in an industry that can't afford to play games.

Newbiepilot · Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:51 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
How many people here would willingly get on, with no reservations whatsoever, on a PW powered NEO, especially on a long over water sector ?

Personally, I would much rather a CEO or CFM powered NEO. I know statistically it is improbable to experience a dual engine failure on a twin, personally I don't want to experience an engine failure on any aircraft I'm on at all, but at the rate that the PW NEO's experience engine shut downs, the less improbable that statistic becomes. I'm not one for doom and gloom, but these problems have been going on for years, they really should've been sorted out by now. It just seems that PW identify the solution to one of the problems and another then pops up, it appears to be a never ending game of catch up, in an industry that can't afford to play games.

You are more likely to die from driving to the airport or catching the flu from a fellow passenger than flying. I wouldn’t worry. The DCGA in India is doing its job as quoted earlier in the thread. Indian operators are not approved to fly The A320neo with PW engines on extended overwater flights. The regulatory authorities have far more information and expertise than you will find on this forum. In this case the Indian authority is being more cautious than the FAA and EASA. Given the number of engine problems with the PW1100G within India, I am not particularly surprised that they are being more cautious.

reltney · Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:35 pm

Some on here are giving smart qualified answers. Teething problems happen all the time is the best! Pratt and Whitney did not forget how, thing come up never before encountered. Remember the CFM 56 JT9 and RB 211 had issues too.

Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

par13del · Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:54 pm

reltney wrote:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

So the fact that the Pratt GTF is only deployed on Airbus a/c in large numbers means nothing...or we can ask it this way, why are there no problems with the GTF on the MAX fleet?
If you want to avoid an A versus B your comment actually creates that.

OA940 · Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:20 am

reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

This is like the only thread this level of sarcasm is the only good answer

jupiter2 · Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:30 am

par13del wrote:
reltney wrote:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

So the fact that the Pratt GTF is only deployed on Airbus a/c in large numbers means nothing...or we can ask it this way, why are there no problems with the GTF on the MAX fleet?
If you want to avoid an A versus B your comment actually creates that.

In his defence, the PW GTF is not just deployed on the NEO. However there was an IFSD of a GTF on a KE C Series/Airbus 220 on the 26/12 and LX also had issues with 2 of theirs on the 19/12 and 21/12.

exFWAOONW · Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:04 am

Natflyer wrote:
Its not like CFM hasn´t had its issues. A lot of Leap-1B engines being replaced just a few months old.

I guess my point wasn’t very clear. These are a new technology (geared fans). Testing won’t find things simply because they don’t know what TO test. It looks great during testing.

Go back to the early jets. The comet, and Locheed’s Electra turbo-prop for example. They went through testing, and they thought they had fixed all the issues and entered service. They started falling out of the sky. It wasn’t until the science of metal fatigue was developed that there was a way to even understand what was happening so then they could fix the problem.

airnorth · Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:21 am

My memory is always suspect so I will ask this question, did Swiss not use two different ( presumably, one updated and one older ) versions of the Pratt on each their A 220's in an effort to reduce the probability of having the same failure occur on each side? I feel like I read that somewhere but cannot find a reference online.

AvObserver · Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:56 am

par13del wrote:
reltney wrote:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

So the fact that the Pratt GTF is only deployed on Airbus a/c in large numbers means nothing...or we can ask it this way, why are there no problems with the GTF on the MAX fleet?
If you want to avoid an A versus B your comment actually creates that.

Was this a hypothetical comment? You know there are no GTF's on the MAX fleet, right? 737 MAX is solely powered by CFM Leap 1-Bs although for awhile it looked like they might adopt Leap 1-As for the MAX-10; the early studies of a 132" stretch made that a possibility until high development cost estimates for that variant made it a non-starter. To my knowledge, at no point was P&W's GTF considered for the MAX program; I think Boeing's cozy relationship with CFM made that firm's engine a shoe-in and also Boeing didn't want the added certification costs of a 2nd engine. Airbus's bigger orderbook makes a 2nd supplier a must so P&W needs to iron out these issues because CFM simply can't support all of the orders for both the NEO and MAX programs all by itself.

anshabhi · Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:34 am

The aircraft involved, VT-ITE is now grounded for 7 straight days, on an island!

Port Blair is closer to Bangkok than any Indian airport, and I think IndiGo might send a widebody or a ship carrying equipment and engine from there

Newbiepilot · Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:07 am

anshabhi wrote:
The aircraft involved, VT-ITE is now grounded for 7 straight days, on an island!

Port Blair is closer to Bangkok than any Indian airport, and I think IndiGo might send a widebody or a ship carrying equipment and engine from there

I would assume Port Blair doesn’t have any equipment to change an engine. It is a tiny airport. Here likely are few worse places in the IndiGo network to have to change an engine. Shipping an engine in by boat is going to be time consuming

VV · Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:09 pm

The good news is that none of the incidences so far is related to the fan-gearbox.

Heinkel · Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:27 pm

reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

Past glory.

Virtually all the men (an maybee a few women) who designed and built these great engines in the past are dead now. No one is working for PW anymore. Success in years gone by is no guaranty for success today and in future.

fsabo · Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:28 pm

Heinkel wrote:
reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

Past glory.

Virtually all the men (an maybee a few women) who designed and built these great engines in the past are dead now. No one is working for PW anymore. Success in years gone by is no guaranty for success today and in future.

IIRC, lightsaber said PW operates in a manner where they get rid of experienced engineers when at the moment they are considered to be not required. When engineers are again required they then hire. I suppose that looks great on paper to bean counters. They are now paying the price for that stupidity.

anshabhi · Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:38 pm

In modern times, like Boeing, PW has also become only an assembling company, where it assembles various parts from different manufacturers and labels PW on it.

They have even out sourced the assembly line to MTU

SteelChair · Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:52 pm

It is reasonable to wonder if and when PW is going to get their act together. Its been a pathetic effort so far.

Does anyone know where one can obtain PW reliability statistics publicly? I'm wondering what progress they are making.

PW100 · Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:45 pm

Heinkel wrote:
Past glory.

Virtually all the men (an maybee a few women) who designed and built these great engines in the past are dead now. No one is working for PW anymore. Success in years gone by is no guaranty for success today and in future.

Yes, those "great engines of past glory" (your words) were (much) less reliable than todays GTF. And it's not even close, but by a wide margin, like a full order of magnitude . . .

strfyr51 · Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:22 pm

reltney wrote:
Yup, damn those engines on all those DC-9s 737-100/200s 707s, DC-8s, 747s, 767s,757s, 727s, Mercure, all the fighter jets powered by the J-57 and variants! Something about all those radial engines like the R-2800 in the Corsair, Thunderbolt, Bearcat, hellcat, tigercat, And the R-4360 on the B-36, c-97, B337, C-74,C124, .........well, I am tired of naming 3/4 of the airplanes in the world. Damn those at Pratt and Whitney for not knowing anything about aircraft engines. Wait, I ,flew F-16 and could accelerate thru Mach going strait up on a PW engine....DAMN, who wants to do that.... thanks PW for nothing......

That engine is no better or worse than any other new designed engine. It has bugs but also do many other new Tech engines. Years ago we had problems with the CFM-56-2 and the -3's We figured out the fuel nozzles were clogging and leaking and failing due to being coked up. We instituted an engine wash program which cleaned the fuel nozzles and all of that ended. But only after having changed 100's of fuel nozzles first. So? NO jet engine is infallible. and I've worked on a damn bunch of them during my career. starting with the J48, J60, J85.CF700-2D2, J79, JT3,JT4,JT8D-1 thru-17, JT9D-3 thru -7ACN, CF6-6 thru-80, RB211-22, CFM56-2,3,5 and 7. PW2000, PW4000.
Not a one of them didn't have some initial problems and all became award winning engines

maint123 · Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:55 am

Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

airnorth · Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:21 am

maint123 wrote:
Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

Whats wrong with using helicoil threads?

smartplane · Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:21 am

maint123 wrote:
Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

Certainly used in internal combustion engines. Numerous sizes and materials used, so completely possible.

maint123 · Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:28 am

airnorth wrote:
maint123 wrote:
Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

Whats wrong with using helicoil threads?

In the heavy industry I work in, helicoils are only used when original tapped threads shear and helicoils have to be used if retapping is not possible. We don't consider it a reliable solution.

smartplane · Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:29 am

maint123 wrote:
airnorth wrote:
maint123 wrote:
Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

Whats wrong with using helicoil threads?

In the heavy industry I work in, helicoils are only used when original tapped threads shear and helicoils have to be used if retapping is not possible. We don't consider it a reliable solution.

Googled aviation helicoils. There's an aviation ISO/SAE standard. Some helicoil materials good for 200,000psi & 700 degrees C.

dtw2hyd · Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:03 pm

While Indigo may be following PW/DGCA inspection guidelines by the book, by now they should have acquired enough expertise to predict an engine failure. Right now it appears they are using it until it fails. Not a good approach.

anshabhi · Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:44 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
While Indigo may be following PW/DGCA inspection guidelines by the book, by now they should have acquired enough expertise to predict an engine failure. Right now it appears they are using it until it fails. Not a good approach.

I don't see any reason for IndiGo to invest in such a prediction algorithm. It would probably involve analyzing data from every possible sensor that the engine has got, and analyzing them in real time.

I don't think PW engines support IoT related techs by default

They get full compensations from PW in any case for engine failure.

RB211trent · Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:49 pm

smartplane wrote:
maint123 wrote:
airnorth wrote:
Whats wrong with using helicoil threads?

In the heavy industry I work in, helicoils are only used when original tapped threads shear and helicoils have to be used if retapping is not possible. We don't consider it a reliable solution.

Googled aviation helicoils. There's an aviation ISO/SAE standard. Some helicoil materials good for 200,000psi & 700 degrees C.

Jet engines for all manufacturers use LOADS of helicoils. If the threads are damaged replace the helicoil not scrap the part.

dtw2hyd · Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:32 pm

anshabhi wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
While Indigo may be following PW/DGCA inspection guidelines by the book, by now they should have acquired enough expertise to predict an engine failure. Right now it appears they are using it until it fails. Not a good approach.

I don't see any reason for IndiGo to invest in such a prediction algorithm. It would probably involve analyzing data from every possible sensor that the engine has got, and analyzing them in real time.

I don't think PW engines support IoT related techs by default

They get full compensations from PW in any case for engine failure.

Not asking 6E to invest in technology or PW to add more monitoring. Good old intuition by an experienced line technician goes a long way.

As others pointed out GTF is not the only modern engine with prolonged adolescence. GE90 is the same, first frame had an uncontained engine failure 14?? days before delivery. Not every airline is lucky enough to have Aditya Ghosh writing contracts which force the manufacturer to replace unlimited engines and a handful of compensation. AI has to drop the engine disassemble the engine, test the failed part and send to manufacturer for warranty replacement. Not a single AI GE90 was swapped even though they had several issues.

Newbiepilot · Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:33 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
While Indigo may be following PW/DGCA inspection guidelines by the book, by now they should have acquired enough expertise to predict an engine failure. Right now it appears they are using it until it fails. Not a good approach.

I don't see any reason for IndiGo to invest in such a prediction algorithm. It would probably involve analyzing data from every possible sensor that the engine has got, and analyzing them in real time.

I don't think PW engines support IoT related techs by default

They get full compensations from PW in any case for engine failure.

Not asking 6E to invest in technology or PW to add more monitoring. Good old intuition by an experienced line technician goes a long way.

As others pointed out GTF is not the only modern engine with prolonged adolescence. GE90 is the same, first frame had an uncontained engine failure 14?? days before delivery. Not every airline is lucky enough to have Aditya Ghosh writing contracts which force the manufacturer to replace unlimited engines and a handful of compensation. AI has to drop the engine disassemble the engine, test the failed part and send to manufacturer for warranty replacement. Not a single AI GE90 was swapped even though they had several issues.

What airline in the world is driving engine changes based on mechanic intuition? Airlines monitor parameters like oil consumption, EGT margin etc and have regular boroscope inspections. I have no doubt the maintenance program for the engines can be improved, but how many engine failures that IndiGo has experienced could have been predicted? That is an honest question. I haven’t read any reports on the engine failures to know what could have been predicted. If there are fault messages or indications that a failure is imminent, I hope these are getting shared among all the airlines in various fleet conferences.

WayexTDI · Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:24 pm

maint123 wrote:
airnorth wrote:
maint123 wrote:
Interesting read on PWs production issues.
What struck me is the use of helicoils in engines !!
So eliminating tapped holes in non critical areas is fine but using helicoils in engines is a first for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... dd25ab7007

Whats wrong with using helicoil threads?

In the heavy industry I work in, helicoils are only used when original tapped threads shear and helicoils have to be used if retapping is not possible. We don't consider it a reliable solution.

No offense, but you obviously have no experience in aviation maintenance, since you work in the heavy industry, and are comparing 2 very different industries.

FYI, helicoils are extensively used in aviation (from the factory); mainly due to the fact that a lot of parts are aluminum (for lighter weight) and screws are mostly stainless steel. Steel screws are much stronger than aluminum threads, so there is a risk of damaging the threads. Also, there is galvanic corrosion between steel screws and aluminum bodies; hence the use of "easily replaceable" steel helicoils in aluminum bodies.

rbavfan · Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:11 pm

par13del wrote:
reltney wrote:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

So the fact that the Pratt GTF is only deployed on Airbus a/c in large numbers means nothing...or we can ask it this way, why are there no problems with the GTF on the MAX fleet?
If you want to avoid an A versus B your comment actually creates that.

The A321neo engine uses core mounting. A220 and others use 1 fan case and 1 engine core mount. The weight of the fan/gearbox could be part of the issue.

rbavfan · Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:11 pm

par13del wrote:
reltney wrote:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. It is just the airbus planes from what is published which have the problem.......mmmmmmmmmm

So the fact that the Pratt GTF is only deployed on Airbus a/c in large numbers means nothing...or we can ask it this way, why are there no problems with the GTF on the MAX fleet?
If you want to avoid an A versus B your comment actually creates that.

The A321neo engine uses core mounting. A220 and others use 1 fan case and 1 engine core mount. The weight of the fan/gearbox could be part of the issue.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net