It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time that an uncontained engine failure happened...

See report:
https://www.airlive.net/alert-french-au ... wiss-a220/

Not everyone will know that this is the engine that powers the A220.

Hopefully for all companies involved it is an isolated event without too much trouble for the program which is currently ramping up the production.

Momo1435 wrote:

Not everyone will know that this is the engine that powers the A220.

Title has been updated accordingly.

flee wrote:

It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time that an uncontained engine failure happened...

See report:
https://www.airlive.net/alert-french-au ... wiss-a220/

Are we sure this is "uncontained" i.e. parts escaped the case rather than ejected out the back?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-460377/ is report on the same failure.

There have been uncontained failures in the past, ref: https://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 regarding "Korean Airlines Bombardier C-Series CS-300, registration HL8314 performing flight KE-753" reporting "several holes in the low pressure turbine case".

Also https://avherald.com/h?search_term=bcs& ... search.y=0 gives a run down of various other problems with the type.

Pieces could be as large as 30 CM (about 12 inches for our non-metrics) a size that could kill some one, damage a house or car. Hopefully no serious damage to the plane in other ways, and so far no known injuries,
I wonder if with some newer engines the limits of technology and materials are being pushed and adjustments may have to be made in design or maintenance to reduce such risks.

flee wrote:

It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time .........

Dramatic, much? Fact based? "It had to come..." Right. As it has on PWs, RRs, GEs, MTU, IAE, CFM, Kilmov, Ivchenko, Williams, Allison,..................

Wasn't there an issue related to a fast waring of the engine at one point? I'm glad it ended safely.

SPREE34 wrote:

flee wrote:

It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time .........

Dramatic, much? Fact based? "It had to come..." Right. As it has on PWs, RRs, GEs, MTU, IAE, CFM, Kilmov, Ivchenko, Williams, Allison,..................

Well, I mean.. he makes a point. Dramatic a little, maybe.
But it's not like this engine hasn't had an eyebrow-raising number of in-service issues, across multiple airframe types.

AA737-823 wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

flee wrote:

It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time .........

Dramatic, much? Fact based? "It had to come..." Right. As it has on PWs, RRs, GEs, MTU, IAE, CFM, Kilmov, Ivchenko, Williams, Allison,..................

Well, I mean.. he makes a point. Dramatic a little, maybe.
But it's not like this engine hasn't had an eyebrow-raising number of in-service issues, across multiple airframe types.

Every GTF is a different engine. They are not simple % scales of each other. The E2 has not had any major issues...

maximairways wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

Dramatic, much? Fact based? "It had to come..." Right. As it has on PWs, RRs, GEs, MTU, IAE, CFM, Kilmov, Ivchenko, Williams, Allison,..................

Well, I mean.. he makes a point. Dramatic a little, maybe.
But it's not like this engine hasn't had an eyebrow-raising number of in-service issues, across multiple airframe types.

Every GTF is a different engine. They are not simple % scales of each other. The E2 has not had any major issues...

At the same time, the E2 has only had 7 E190-E2 delivered and in service in the past 18 months... Small population.

This could rain on the PW1524 ETOPS rating. Mean time between failures needs to be very, very low.

SPREE34 wrote:

flee wrote:

It had to come, I guess - after so many issues with the PW engines on various aircraft, it was only a matter of time .........

Dramatic, much? Fact based? "It had to come..." Right.

If the shoe fits...a healthy dose of counterpoint to the one-way A220 hoopla you read about here.

Only 10 responses, the less said the better, eh?

JayinKitsap wrote:

This could rain on the PW1524 ETOPS rating. Mean time between failures needs to be very, very low.

Shouldn't the MTBF be very high? Common sense.

jimatkins wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

This could rain on the PW1524 ETOPS rating. Mean time between failures needs to be very, very low.

Shouldn't the MTBF be very high? Common sense.

You are right, ETOPS rules require the following:

Engines must have an In-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate better than 1 per 20,000 hours for ETOPS 120, 1 per 50,000 hours for ETOPS 180 and 1 per 100,000 hours for beyond 180.

I was thinking the occurrence of failures kills the ETOPs approval.

JayinKitsap wrote:

jimatkins wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

This could rain on the PW1524 ETOPS rating. Mean time between failures needs to be very, very low.

Shouldn't the MTBF be very high? Common sense.

You are right, ETOPS rules require the following:

Engines must have an In-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate better than 1 per 20,000 hours for ETOPS 120, 1 per 50,000 hours for ETOPS 180 and 1 per 100,000 hours for beyond 180.

I was thinking the occurrence of failures kills the ETOPs approval.

That actually strikes me as kind of low. 20,000 hours at 2500hr/yr x 2 engines is 1 IFSD/yr in a fleet of 4 aircraft for ETOPS 120, which gets you everything you could probably want to do with an A220 save for Hawaii.

Hawaii need ETOPS 120 only, not 180+?

i think it need 180
https://aerosavvy.com/etops/

Hawaii needs 180