Confirmed: LX A220 GTF IFSD on September 16th, 2019

runway23 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:59 am

On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

Yet another case of IFSD. This engine lost the 1st stage compressor and destroying the reverser cowlings. Similar event with another Swiss aircraft that landed in Paris and needed an engine change there.

JCA currently in quarantine in the Swiss hangar, no one allowed on board or near by without a SUST escort.

SUST, BEA, NTSB deciding who is in charge.

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

VV · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:17 am

scbriml · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:21 am

VV wrote:
Why?

Why what?

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:23 am

scbriml wrote:
VV wrote:
Why?

Why what?

Or why not?

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:24 am

runway23 wrote:
On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

Yet another case of IFSD. This engine lost the 1st stage compressor and destroying the reverser cowlings. Similar event with another Swiss aircraft that landed in Paris and needed an engine change there.

JCA currently in quarantine in the Swiss hangar, no one allowed on board or near by without a SUST escort.

SUST, BEA, NTSB deciding who is in charge.

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

IFSDs don't kill people. Flawed control logic and missing oversight do. Why would a grounding be considered?

ltbewr · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:31 am

Like with the 737MAX, a higher than expected issue to safely and properly operate the aircraft must mean strong action to determine the problem. We have seen significantly higher rates of major engine failures on some models from the major engine makers, likely in parts due to the demands to improve efficiency and the use of lighter materials.

VV · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:34 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
runway23 wrote:
On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

Yet another case of IFSD. This engine lost the 1st stage compressor and destroying the reverser cowlings. Similar event with another Swiss aircraft that landed in Paris and needed an engine change there.

JCA currently in quarantine in the Swiss hangar, no one allowed on board or near by without a SUST escort.

SUST, BEA, NTSB deciding who is in charge.

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

IFSDs don't kill people. Flawed control logic and missing oversight do. Why would a grounding be considered?

Yeah, let's wait until there are casualties.

StTim · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:37 am

I am sure if there are real concerns then a grounding will be considered.

First step would probably be a reduction in ETOPS.

enilria · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:40 am

runway23 wrote:
On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

Yet another case of IFSD. This engine lost the 1st stage compressor and destroying the reverser cowlings. Similar event with another Swiss aircraft that landed in Paris and needed an engine change there.

JCA currently in quarantine in the Swiss hangar, no one allowed on board or near by without a SUST escort.

SUST, BEA, NTSB deciding who is in charge.

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

As cynical as this is to say, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is an Airbus grounding “to even things up”, but I suspect it is more likely to impact the NEO. We’ll see. India already seem close to a NEO grounding. The A220 is fairly small potatoes.

par13del · Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:49 am

ltbewr wrote:
Like with the 737MAX, a higher than expected issue to safely and properly operate the aircraft must mean strong action to determine the problem. We have seen significantly higher rates of major engine failures on some models from the major engine makers, likely in parts due to the demands to improve efficiency and the use of lighter materials.

In other threads the issue of how much inspections engines get before certification has been raised, as you state new engines and their modified variants have been problematic in recent times, the cost to and effect on some airlines has been similar to the MAX grounding. On the 787 fleet, we have had major groundings awaiting engine repairs and or swaps, those individual a/c cost are significantly higher than the MAX grounding as in addition to lease cost of widebody a/c being higher, the earning potential and crew cost are also higher.

However, the biggest issue to me on the new engines is do the regulators need to review how they certify engines for ETOP's, after all, most engines are now certified with some level of ETOPS right out of the gate.

OA940 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:16 pm

Has anyone actually indicated that there's a major issue? Is PW investigating?

Revelation · Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:29 pm

runway23 wrote:
This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately this reminds me of http://aerossurance.com/safety-manageme ... g-failure/ which made a major mess of the PW1524G engine:

VV · Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:34 pm

OA940 wrote:
Has anyone actually indicated that there's a major issue? Is PW investigating?

Those are legitimate questions.

Jomar777 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:07 pm

I thought I read yesterday (on the post considering LH's fleet / replacement of their A319s, E-Jets, etc.) that the A220 was doing extremelly well with Swiss...
This is NOT a sarcastic comment - only feel that either this issue is isolated to some frames (no grounding warranted) or the A220 is not doing THAT well.
I think that, until further data and information is available, it is hard to evaluate so we must avoid speculation and wait.
If the A220 is grounded, it will impact not only Swiss but Delta and Air Baltic (this one basically would be hit very hard given that most of its fleet is A220s now).
I would not see problems with orders and MOIs since there would be a potential to review and correct amny issues prior.

One question - is this the same engine (or a very similar one...) that is used on the E2??

FluidFlow · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:20 pm

It is kind of crazy how "bad" certain engine manufacturers are right now: Pratt on the A220 and A320neo as well as RR on the 787.

Amiga500 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:22 pm

If there is a very similar failure mode on the engine causing an unexpected in flight shutdown, and that shutdown has a risk of UERF then yes - should be grounded till P&W sort their ____ out.

What is good for the goose.

Safety doesn't get compromised just cos of where the suits that stand to make the profits are based.

DarthLobster · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:25 pm

VV wrote:
Yeah, let's wait until there are casualties.

Same words spoken by NASA management on January 27, 1986...

keesje · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:31 pm

This could be serious. I think "IFSD" or "irregularity on one of the engines" sounds better than the uncontained engine failures we seem to be discussing. Parts of the HPC finding their way through the HPT.. It seems to have been prevented that pictures leaked, so far. No doubt Swiss and Airbus social media folks are scanning 24/7 . :scared:

Please join this discussion

wjcandee · Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:44 pm

Wow, this thread seems to have gone off like a rocket with very little known from official or even knowledgeable sources beyond that the crew did an air-return.

Everything else is off the sensationalist comment to the avherald article, which is completely-unsourced.

Maybe there is an issue, maybe there isn't, but I haven't seen anything at all yet to suggest that there is. Who's to say it isn't FOD?

That Air China 777-300 with a jillion people aboard doing a 14 hour flight has loud, flaming, engine issues on takeoff from IAD, and all people on here say is "COOL!!!"

The C-Series has an issue after a largely-flawless entry into service, and it's OMG Katie Bar the Door!

Strato2 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm

VV wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
runway23 wrote:
On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

IFSDs don't kill people. Flawed control logic and missing oversight do. Why would a grounding be considered?

Yeah, let's wait until there are casualties.

And then what?

ExMilitaryEng · Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:21 pm

Just curious; (in proportion) does the A220's GTF has more problems than the Neo's GTF?

wave46 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:24 pm

Is the A220 engine that different from the A320neo engine? I know they're different models of the engine. A grounding of all the P&W engines would be a logistical nightmare on top of the MAX grounding.

scbriml · Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:26 pm

If we ground every type that suffers an IFSD, there won’t be many planes flying.

mjoelnir · Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:36 pm

The 737MAX is grounded and Boeing friends need the opportunity to talk about grounding some frames by other producers. To push their arguments they use some false equivalents between different incidents, that are hardly comparable.

The question, should all 737NG have been grounded after the two uncontained engine failures in regards to two Southwest 737-700 with CFM56-7 engines?
Incident on Southwest flight 1380 on April the 17th 2018 and Southwest flight 3470 on August the 27th 2016.

Here we talk about contained engine failures, both for the A220-300 as well as the A320-271s in India. Contained engine failures making a return or outside landing necessary, are hardly as serious as uncontained engine failures in the air.

airnorth · Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:01 pm

IFSD - In Flight Shut Downs, I looked it up on google, it came in second after Information Field Size Device

Fatbus · Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:18 pm

Here we go again . Those who are uninformed making assumptions. IFSD happen more than people realize.

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:33 pm

Fatbus wrote:
Here we go again . Those who are uninformed making assumptions. IFSD happen more than people realize.

Exactly. And they don't kill people. Not sure everybody knows, but todays jets have two of those engines. For a reason.

ETOPS reduction or withdrawal? Sure, is in the cards. Grounding? Not really, until a potential failure mode is identified, that could lead to a same time IFSD event of both engines.

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:36 pm

keesje wrote:
This could be serious. I think "IFSD" or "irregularity on one of the engines" sounds better than the uncontained engine failures we seem to be discussing. Parts of the HPC finding their way through the HPT.. It seems to have been prevented that pictures leaked, so far. No doubt Swiss and Airbus social media folks are scanning 24/7 . Please join this discussion

Parts of the HPC going through HPT is not uncontained. Where else would parts from the HPC go, but downstream with the airflow? I have seen plenty of engines with totally destroyed core engines due to a single blade rupture upstream. Nothing uncontained in that.

The Trent 900 losing its IPT disc over Indonesia - that is uncontained.

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:38 pm

VV wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
runway23 wrote:
On Monday (16 September), HB-JCA, an A220-300 operating GVA-LHR suffered engines problems which led to the aircraft returning to GVA.

Avharald has some basic information regarding the incident http://avherald.com/h?article=4cce7a9f&opt=0

One person on Avharald has commented

This follows similar issues with the A220 notably:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cac778d&opt=0 HB-JCM in July
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2283b8&opt=0 HL8314 in December 2018
http://avherald.com/h?search_term=BCS3&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 And other various engine problems.

The fact that it seems this is the same problem within less than 2 months suggests that the PW1524G has some significant issues that need to be addressed.

IFSDs don't kill people. Flawed control logic and missing oversight do. Why would a grounding be considered?

Yeah, let's wait until there are casualties.

Or let us just be normal? And make a reasonable risk assessment, rather than jumping the gun?

wjcandee · Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:52 pm

Can the mods please change the unwarranted clickbait title of this thread? I just wanted to throw the computer across the room when I read it.

The only title that the rumor, not even facts, in this thread would justify would be something like "Rumor: A220 GTF IFSD." That's it.

VV · Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:21 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Can the mods please change the unwarranted clickbait title of this thread? I just wanted to throw the computer across the room when I read it.
....

Just do it.

northstardc4m · Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:03 pm

Consider that pretty much every plane in the last 30+ years has had some kind of engine issues without groundings:

777 had issues with all 3 engine makers at various times, including an undetected issue with the Trent that led to a W/O (BA38)

767-300 and 747-400 had issues with both the PW4000 and CF6

A330 had issues with the CF6-80E, not counting the software problem with the same engine during testing that led to a crash.

A318 had issues with the PW6000

MD-11 had issues with the PW4400

A340-500/-600 with the Trent 600

A380 with both engines (QF32 with Trent 900, AF66 with GP7200, both uncontained failures)

And the list just keeps going... so what's different about the A220 that puts it in a different category?

iamlucky13 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:22 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
keesje wrote:
This could be serious. I think "IFSD" or "irregularity on one of the engines" sounds better than the uncontained engine failures we seem to be discussing. Parts of the HPC finding their way through the HPT.. It seems to have been prevented that pictures leaked, so far. No doubt Swiss and Airbus social media folks are scanning 24/7 . Please join this discussion

Parts of the HPC going through HPT is not uncontained. Where else would parts from the HPC go, but downstream with the airflow? I have seen plenty of engines with totally destroyed core engines due to a single blade rupture upstream. Nothing uncontained in that.

The Trent 900 losing its IPT disc over Indonesia - that is uncontained.

I'm not even sure if Southwest 1380 is technically considered an uncontained failure. In that case, the fan blade apparently bounced forward after hitting the fan casing, destroying the inlet cowling, pieces of which damaged the wing and fuselage, leading to the death of one passenger.

As I've seen the term used in the past, an uncontained failure is one where the protections against parts being ejected at high speeds radially fail:
* Fan casing needs to be able to withstand impacts from failed fan blades
* Compressor and turbine need to be designed, quality controlled, and maintained not to fail, as the speed and density of the parts involved are impractical to reliably contain.

Southwest 1380 was an unusual case where, as far as I know, the casing withstood the impacts, but the parts happened to find their way around the case while still having enough momentum to pose a significant danger to the aircraft and occupants.

These recent GTF issues don't sound comparable from the details provided so far.

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:37 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:

As I've seen the term used in the past, an uncontained failure is one where the protections against parts being ejected at high speeds radially fail:
* Fan casing needs to be able to withstand impacts from failed fan blades
* Compressor and turbine need to be designed, quality controlled, and maintained not to fail, as the speed and density of the parts involved are impractical to reliably contain.
.

Basically, every "blade" failure must be containable. And thats whats happening throughout the industry.

What is not reliably containable are failures of parts rotating aroung their own axis, aka all disks and shafts. Angular velocity in combination with their mass lead to such high energy states, that no engine casing can withstand. Hence, they have a hard life limit, after which they have to be scrapped, no matter their physical condition.

zeke · Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:02 pm

An engine issue by itself should never ground an aircraft, engines are certified separately to the airframe, and have their own TCDS.

As long as the airframe handles the engine out situation correctly, which the A220 seems to be doing getting back to the ground performing correctly I don’t see the basis for the airframe to be grounded.

OA940 · Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:43 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
I thought I read yesterday (on the post considering LH's fleet / replacement of their A319s, E-Jets, etc.) that the A220 was doing extremelly well with Swiss...
This is NOT a sarcastic comment - only feel that either this issue is isolated to some frames (no grounding warranted) or the A220 is not doing THAT well.
I think that, until further data and information is available, it is hard to evaluate so we must avoid speculation and wait.
If the A220 is grounded, it will impact not only Swiss but Delta and Air Baltic (this one basically would be hit very hard given that most of its fleet is A220s now).
I would not see problems with orders and MOIs since there would be a potential to review and correct amny issues prior.

One question - is this the same engine (or a very similar one...) that is used on the E2??

Like you said, I wanna avoid speculation, but I've only heard great things said from all the operators. BT and LX absolutely adore the plane (or they tell us so at least) but it doesn't make much sense to lie.

I've been wondering about the engine in general. I don't know much about engines, but isn't this the same ''family'' of engines that has caused all the troubles for the A320neos? And IIRC it's also used by the E2 and I think MRJ too but don't quote me on that. Does that mean they will be affected too?

Cubsrule · Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:47 pm

zeke wrote:
An engine issue by itself should never ground an aircraft, engines are certified separately to the airframe, and have their own TCDS.

As long as the airframe handles the engine out situation correctly, which the A220 seems to be doing getting back to the ground performing correctly I don’t see the basis for the airframe to be grounded.

The standard isn't (and shouldn't be) that "the airplane can get on the ground after the failure in ideal conditions if the pilots do everything right." After all, if that were the standard wouldn't the MAX be flying?

rbavfan · Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:03 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Like with the 737MAX, a higher than expected issue to safely and properly operate the aircraft must mean strong action to determine the problem. We have seen significantly higher rates of major engine failures on some models from the major engine makers, likely in parts due to the demands to improve efficiency and the use of lighter materials.

And the EU carriers & Delta operate them overland with plenty of landing spots if 1 engine fails. It's not like the max series as it does not nose dive when it fails.

rbavfan · Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:04 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Like with the 737MAX, a higher than expected issue to safely and properly operate the aircraft must mean strong action to determine the problem. We have seen significantly higher rates of major engine failures on some models from the major engine makers, likely in parts due to the demands to improve efficiency and the use of lighter materials.

And the EU carriers & Delta operate them overland with plenty of landing spots if 1 engine fails. It's not like the max series as it does not nose dive when it fails.

mjoelnir · Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:57 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
keesje wrote:
This could be serious. I think "IFSD" or "irregularity on one of the engines" sounds better than the uncontained engine failures we seem to be discussing. Parts of the HPC finding their way through the HPT.. It seems to have been prevented that pictures leaked, so far. No doubt Swiss and Airbus social media folks are scanning 24/7 . Please join this discussion

Parts of the HPC going through HPT is not uncontained. Where else would parts from the HPC go, but downstream with the airflow? I have seen plenty of engines with totally destroyed core engines due to a single blade rupture upstream. Nothing uncontained in that.

The Trent 900 losing its IPT disc over Indonesia - that is uncontained.

I'm not even sure if Southwest 1380 is technically considered an uncontained failure. In that case, the fan blade apparently bounced forward after hitting the fan casing, destroying the inlet cowling, pieces of which damaged the wing and fuselage, leading to the death of one passenger.

As I've seen the term used in the past, an uncontained failure is one where the protections against parts being ejected at high speeds radially fail:
* Fan casing needs to be able to withstand impacts from failed fan blades
* Compressor and turbine need to be designed, quality controlled, and maintained not to fail, as the speed and density of the parts involved are impractical to reliably contain.

Southwest 1380 was an unusual case where, as far as I know, the casing withstood the impacts, but the parts happened to find their way around the case while still having enough momentum to pose a significant danger to the aircraft and occupants.

These recent GTF issues don't sound comparable from the details provided so far.

Southwest 1380 is exactly that, an uncontained failure. Pieces of the engine were ejecting radially hitting the fuselage. Exactly the definition of an uncontained engine failure and that accident was defined as that.
The fuselage was pierced, a cabin window smashed and the person pulled out of the window died.

There is no comparison to the failures on the various GTF engines, that were all contained, with in the worst case, pieces ejected through the tail pipe of the engine.

If engine failures would lead to grounding, the number 1 candidate should have been the 737NG with CFM56-7 engines.

Nicoeddf · Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:10 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
zeke wrote:
An engine issue by itself should never ground an aircraft, engines are certified separately to the airframe, and have their own TCDS.

As long as the airframe handles the engine out situation correctly, which the A220 seems to be doing getting back to the ground performing correctly I don’t see the basis for the airframe to be grounded.

The standard isn't (and shouldn't be) that "the airplane can get on the ground after the failure in ideal conditions if the pilots do everything right." After all, if that were the standard wouldn't the MAX be flying?

A single engine failure, especially in a not critical flight phase, is something the "below average pilot on a below average day" should be able to manage.

If someone can't handle an engine failure: no business up front for the guy or gal.

Nose diving into the ground is different!

beechnut · Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:46 pm

No doubt a failure analysis will be done, if it hasn't been done already. Talk of a grounding seems premature at this point. Before we get to that, ADs may impose lower hour limits on the engine before pulling the engine from service for overhaul, or operating limitations, until a solution is found.

Beech

zeke · Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:03 am

Cubsrule wrote:
The standard isn't (and shouldn't be) that "the airplane can get on the ground after the failure in ideal conditions if the pilots do everything right." After all, if that were the standard wouldn't the MAX be flying?

No the MAX is an airframe issue, it is covered under the airframe tcds. Unless you can point to something that the A220 airframe is contributing to this, you clearly do not understand the certification process.

Cubsrule · Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:42 am

zeke wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
The standard isn't (and shouldn't be) that "the airplane can get on the ground after the failure in ideal conditions if the pilots do everything right." After all, if that were the standard wouldn't the MAX be flying?

No the MAX is an airframe issue, it is covered under the airframe tcds. Unless you can point to something that the A220 airframe is contributing to this, you clearly do not understand the certification process.

But the A220 has only one engine type, no? So here, grounding the engine versus grounding the airframe is a distinction without a difference.

VV · Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:45 am

What exactly happened on the two compressor related failures?

SQ22 · Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:52 am

wjcandee wrote:
Can the mods please change the unwarranted clickbait title of this thread? I just wanted to throw the computer across the room when I read it.

The only title that the rumor, not even facts, in this thread would justify would be something like "Rumor: A220 GTF IFSD." That's it.

Please use the reporting function instead of just posting it, thanks.

mjoelnir · Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:40 am

Cubsrule wrote:
zeke wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
The standard isn't (and shouldn't be) that "the airplane can get on the ground after the failure in ideal conditions if the pilots do everything right." After all, if that were the standard wouldn't the MAX be flying?

No the MAX is an airframe issue, it is covered under the airframe tcds. Unless you can point to something that the A220 airframe is contributing to this, you clearly do not understand the certification process.

But the A220 has only one engine type, no? So here, grounding the engine versus grounding the airframe is a distinction without a difference.

You would still ground the engines because of in flight shut downs.

People seem to be happy to not ground an engine that had two inflight uncontained failures in less than two years.

I do not say that either is a reason for grounding, but why hammering on the A220 GTF situation and ignore worse cases?

Amiga500 · Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:51 am

Cubsrule wrote:
But the A220 has only one engine type, no? So here, grounding the engine versus grounding the airframe is a distinction without a difference.

You ground the engine if there is evidence of a systematic failure that means there is a significant chance of losing both engines on an aircraft in any flight.

Given evidence to date, doesn't look like we are there.

wjcandee · Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:10 pm

SQ22 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Can the mods please change the unwarranted clickbait title of this thread? I just wanted to throw the computer across the room when I read it.

The only title that the rumor, not even facts, in this thread would justify would be something like "Rumor: A220 GTF IFSD." That's it.

Please use the reporting function instead of just posting it, thanks.

Good point. Sorry. Didn't think it was something to call the "police" about, but I realize they get "cat-in-the-tree" calls too.

SQ22 · Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:10 pm

wjcandee wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Can the mods please change the unwarranted clickbait title of this thread? I just wanted to throw the computer across the room when I read it.

The only title that the rumor, not even facts, in this thread would justify would be something like "Rumor: A220 GTF IFSD." That's it.

Please use the reporting function instead of just posting it, thanks.

Good point. Sorry. Didn't think it was something to call the "police" about, but I realize they get "cat-in-the-tree" calls too.

This is the best way to make requests like changing thread titles, its not only for reporting posts.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net