It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NTSB confirms uncontained failure in Las Vegas

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Apparently Captain Obvious works for the NTSB. They confirmed today that the British Airways 777 tatty suffered an engine fire during takeoff had an uncontained failure of the engine.

The failure was in the Stage 8 disk web, in the high pressure compressor portion of the engine. This rules out the cause being related to the earlier FAA Airworthiness Directive requiring inspection of the engines. That inspection covered cracks in welds on the Stage 9 and 10 area.

GE is currently inspecting 38 engines built around the same time, that were in storage. There are 176 of this type of engine still in use.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Oooohh that sounds expensive...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Not too expensive. Only $261.5M at list.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Welp...no flying for me.

Do we happen to know what airlines those 176 engines are operating with?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DrumStickNinja

They're all on older 777-200s. They were produced around 1995. They changed from the GE90-85 to the GE90-115B not long after. Some of them are in storage with airlines, waiting until they're needed.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the info. Hopefully not needed until they can all pass a thorough inspection.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blackfinger

Not too expensive. Only $261.5M at list.


That seems very very expensive where is that figure from?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrumStickNinja
a reply to: Zaphod58

Welp...no flying for me.

Do we happen to know what airlines those 176 engines are operating with?


A rational response, I'm sure. From the same article:


Such events are extremely rare and previously unprecedented on the GE90. Engine certification requirements are intended to render the chances of an uncontained compressor failure as less than one in a billion.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FawnyKate

The aircraft was written off because of the amount of damage caused by the fire. That's the list price for a 777-200ER.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Ah got you ! I thought you were talking about the engine , I did realize and came back to post as much but you got here first



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

This was the first uncontained failure of a GE90 since they started operating. They've flown millions of flights on 777s.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

My personal favorite was "The cause of the crash was impact with the ground".



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Apparently Captain Obvious works for the NTSB. They confirmed today that the British Airways 777 tatty suffered an engine fire during takeoff had an uncontained failure of the engine.

The failure was in the Stage 8 disk web, in the high pressure compressor portion of the engine. This rules out the cause being related to the earlier FAA Airworthiness Directive requiring inspection of the engines. That inspection covered cracks in welds on the Stage 9 and 10 area.

GE is currently inspecting 38 engines built around the same time, that were in storage. There are 176 of this type of engine still in use.

www.flightglobal.com...


Are they inspecting for faulty engine components, or the containment of engine failures...failures.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Faulty components. The engine has an amazing record for containing failures to date.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
A bit unrelated, but I heard a bump on the radio earlier for an evening tv news broadcast in which they had an interview with 4 survivors of an 'emergency' plane crash. I was honestly unaware there was any other type of plane crash. Even if it's intentional, it's still a freaking emergency, I would think.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's amazing how often that tends to be true. They ought to make a law against it.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
A bit unrelated, but I heard a bump on the radio earlier for an evening tv news broadcast in which they had an interview with 4 survivors of an 'emergency' plane crash. I was honestly unaware there was any other type of plane crash. Even if it's intentional, it's still a freaking emergency, I would think.


For some reason, we seem to wrestle with words and phrases when it comes to aircraft, flying, and pilots... As though awkward is compulsory. Case in point, I was in Chicago a few years ago and as I headed out of the hotel one morning, I saw this sign posted outside one of the conference rooms:



It inspires all manner of Seinfeldesque contemplation... I would be satisfied with the inclusion of the word "avoidance."



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join