The FAA will issue an emergency AD for requiring stepped up inspections of the fan blades on Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines following the uncontained failure of an engine on a United Airlines Boeing 777 near Denver on Saturday. FAA Administrator Steve Dickson issued a statement saying the engines have a unique hollow fan blade design and the AD is based on new information obtained by the agency. Aircraft will reportedly be grounded until inspections are done. The FAA says United is the only U.S. airline that uses the Pratts. Airlines in South Korea and Japan also have PW4000-equipped 777s.
“We reviewed all available safety data following yesterday’s incident,” Dickson said Sunday. “Based on the initial information, we concluded that the inspection interval should be stepped up for the hollow fan blades that are unique to this model of engine, used solely on Boeing 777 airplanes.” He said the AD will be published after a meeting of FAA safety officials Sunday night. Shortly after Dickson issued the statement, United announced that it was voluntarily grounding 24 777s. It’s not clear how that will affect its schedule.
The NTSB issued an investigative update late Sunday and said two fan blades on the engine were broken, one near the hub and one about half way. Part of one blade was caught by the containment ring. All the other blades had damage to the leading edges and tips. The cockpit voice and flight data recorders have been sent to Washington for analysis.
Meanwhile, Japan has ordered Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airlines to ground their fleets of Boeing 777-200 airliners equipped with PW4000 engines and is banning 777s from other countrries with those engines from landing, taking off or overflying the country. JAL has 13 affected aircraft and ANA has 19. Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism grounded the aircraft on Sunday and did not say how long they might be idled. The government said it was gathering information from the FAA to decide its next steps.The airlines had already voluntarily grounded the 777s before the government order.
Japan had already heightened scrutiny of the PW4000s after a JAL 777 flying from Naha to Haneda last Dec. 4 lost part of the cowl in an engine failure. The government ordered stepped up inspections of the engines following that incident. At least one flight was cancelled because of the grounding but both airlines have plenty of aircraft available to fill in for the 777s and no more disruptions are anticipated.
Over reaction.
I was just reading that a similar 2018 engine explosion happened on a 1996 engine with over 77,000 hours. Can’t wait to hear how many years and cycles were on the latest engine. Personally I think it’s miraculous how much these engines take and how long the last.
It does seem over-reaction, unless the new information indicates that any of these Pratts could come apart at any time, which seems unlikely given their history.
On the other hand, it isn’t like these groundings are going to cause much disruption at this moment in history.
Actually the PW4000 series has a history of issues. Grounding the 777’s with the PW engine is absolutely appropriate
I have questions I’ve not seen covered in the media. Denver to Hawaii, immediate return after TO, I imagine the 777 landed heavy due to large fuel load. Did this result in damage to the aircraft?
Did the engine ingest a bird, a drone, etc?
The explosion resulted in catastrophic damage but wasn’t it “contained” within the cowling?
Overweight landing shouldn’t have hurt the airplane.
Agreed. Turbine aircraft that land overweight typically have a specific inspection required, but it’s not usually a big deal.
I have flown the 777 the last 7 years. If it can takeoff, it can return, even single-engine, to the same runway and can autoland if needed. It is an amazing aircraft.
Looks like an N1 blade failure in the parked aircraft picture. There were two engines offered by Boeing for the 777. This one which has a bit more power than the Rolls Royce Trent 892, rated at 90,000 pounds of thrust on each side. The Rolls is more reliable. Still think about 90,000 pounds of thrust, more thrust than the original Redstone Missile that put John Glen into obit, and the B777 has two of them.
In any case the 777 has been a very successful aircraft, reliable and does the job. The engines are not Boeings problems other than hanging them on the aircraft, they are the manufacturers problems.
Is this another case of a corporation taking profits over peoples safety?
Just asking….
One must first look up the concern for “peoples safety” in non-corporate China/Russia to get context for your assertion.
Which corporation, Boeing, no. Pratt maybe. The supplier, maybe. That’s what the investigation is all about.
Looks like an N1 blade failure in the parked aircraft picture. There were two engines offered by Boeing for the 777. This one which has a bit more power than the Rolls Royce Trent 892, rated at 90,000 pounds of thrust on each side. The Rolls is more reliable. Still think about 90,000 pounds of thrust, more thrust than the original Redstone Missile that put John Glen into obit, and the B777 has two of them.
In any case the 777 has been a very successful aircraft, reliable and does the job. The engines are not Boeings problems other than hanging them on the aircraft, they are the manufacturers problems.
Um, not to nit pick, but John Glenn rode to orbit on an Atlas missile. The Redstone was used for the suborbital flights of Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom. Both rockets were modified nuclear warhead military rockets. The Redstone was a direct descendant of the German V-2 and used the same ethanol and LOX fuel combination. It was intended as a short-range SRBM for tactical duty in NATO defense of Western Europe. It had a maximum range of about 100 miles and was never intended to actually reach orbit. The Atlas was a long-range ICBM designed to launch from U.S. soil and hit targets inside the Soviet Union. It used the more “modern” fuel combination of kerosene and LOX. I don’t know what the throw weight capacity of the Redstone was, but the original Atlas was capable of putting about 6,000 pounds into low earth orbit. In any case, each engine on the 777 does produce more thrust than either rocket. Your useless trivia for the day….