AA 763 engine failure on ground run
FAA "significantly tightens existing engine maintenance schedules"
More detail included in LA Times coverage...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...news-a_section
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...news-a_section
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rodthesod
Someone said earlier in the thread, they thought they were water tanks - but I don't think anyone's confirmed that.
If you look at the airport diagram the fuel farm (marked Bulk fuel storage) is further west behind all the hangers. These are some pics of the LAX fuel farm.
These look much more like water tanks.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiousity, what do these recent uncontained disc failures do for the demonstrated reliability of the CF6-80 in terms of ETOPS reliability ?
Anybody know if the reliability stats have been recalibrated for these recent failures ?
Anybody know if the reliability stats have been recalibrated for these recent failures ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inasmuch as the engines were deemed airworthy at the time of failure, I'm sure they will count toward overall model reliability statistics, with ETOPS implications. The fact they weren't operating for an intended flight doesn't count here.
But that's not the half of it. Uncontained failures always warrant some heavyduty introspection by the manufacturer, operator, and FAA to minimize future risk to ETOPS and non-ETOPS alike.
But that's not the half of it. Uncontained failures always warrant some heavyduty introspection by the manufacturer, operator, and FAA to minimize future risk to ETOPS and non-ETOPS alike.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm well irrespective of whether the incident happens during ground runs or in flight, it all ought to count.
It does raise the question whether the CF6-80 met reliability expectations when new, but that the incidence of failure is now begining to climb as fleetwide fatigue sets in ?
Makes one wonder whether there ought to be a maximum age limit for the engine hardware in ETOPS flights ?
It does raise the question whether the CF6-80 met reliability expectations when new, but that the incidence of failure is now begining to climb as fleetwide fatigue sets in ?
Makes one wonder whether there ought to be a maximum age limit for the engine hardware in ETOPS flights ?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kiwiguy...yeah mate...just like the limitations on the Hawaian 737 that lost its top many years ago,and lets not forget the Alaska MD 80.....seems like it has to get catastophic before inspection programmes get the once over!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA's recent NPRM action can be seen here.
Of interest is the FAA's use of the term "unsafe condition" without a quantative threshhold. The CF6-80 has, by any statistical measure, an outstanding reliability record, and the AD proposed will doubtless improve that record. GE would probably love to have their spare parts sales blossom as a result of hardware retirement, but that will create an economic burden on the industry that may raise ticket prices and drive more pax onto the highway. How much safer is that?
Of interest is the FAA's use of the term "unsafe condition" without a quantative threshhold. The CF6-80 has, by any statistical measure, an outstanding reliability record, and the AD proposed will doubtless improve that record. GE would probably love to have their spare parts sales blossom as a result of hardware retirement, but that will create an economic burden on the industry that may raise ticket prices and drive more pax onto the highway. How much safer is that?
Last edited by barit1; 19th Aug 2006 at 13:12.
Originally Posted by barit1
The FAA's recent NPRM action can be seen here.
Of interest is the FAA's use of the term "unsafe condition" without a quantative threshhold. The CF6-80 has, by any statistical measure, an outstanding reliability record, and the AD proposed will doubtless improve that record. GE would probably love to have their spare parts sales blossom as a result of hardware retirement, but that will create an economic burden on the industry that may raise ticket prices and drive more pax onto the highway. How much safer is that?
Of interest is the FAA's use of the term "unsafe condition" without a quantative threshhold. The CF6-80 has, by any statistical measure, an outstanding reliability record, and the AD proposed will doubtless improve that record. GE would probably love to have their spare parts sales blossom as a result of hardware retirement, but that will create an economic burden on the industry that may raise ticket prices and drive more pax onto the highway. How much safer is that?
Oh I would say that there is a quantitative threshold..
At any given time, you are fliyng around with unknowns, about 10 times the number of known problems that you have. So while the reliability record might have been good up to the latest problem identification, you just can't go around ignoring the known stuff, figuring that it's not your turn today.
So you take the known stuff and with some data, (cracks per 1000 engines etc.) you extrapolate out how many more big bangs are likely to occur in the future if you do nothing. If you get an answer anywhere close to one that would indicate that you are using up all your average good reliability record in just a few months of exposure. Clearly not something that either the feds or the operators are prepared to absorb.
The problem with this latest problem is that it is so lethal that you have to err on the side of conservatism to avoid another one like the last one.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a matter of "ignoring the known stuff" - the FAA is right to tighten the life management/inspection/rework cycle when a disc life problem is known. I'll bet GE is working overtime to implement a plan to make this problem a non-problem. Quick and competent response is mandatory on a safety issue such as this.
My earlier comment is that the FAA seems to have no public statistical standard re what is "safe" versus "unsafe". I defy anyone to tell me that we'll achieve a zero accident rate in our lifetime (or ever, for that matter). Does that mean that all commercial aviation is unsafe? The only reasonable question is "How safe is it?", and not "Is it safe?"
My earlier comment is that the FAA seems to have no public statistical standard re what is "safe" versus "unsafe". I defy anyone to tell me that we'll achieve a zero accident rate in our lifetime (or ever, for that matter). Does that mean that all commercial aviation is unsafe? The only reasonable question is "How safe is it?", and not "Is it safe?"
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kiwiguy
...Makes one wonder whether there ought to be a maximum age limit for the engine hardware in ETOPS flights ?
Originally Posted by barit1
My earlier comment is that the FAA seems to have no public statistical standard re what is "safe" versus "unsafe".
I've never seen a light switch criteria, but I have worked with dimmer switches when somebody complains about the amount of light at the end of the tunnel
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An engineering source that I tend to trust has suggested to me that the engine run was carried out without the benefit of the normal max RPM controls.
While the end result could have been much worse the relevance of the incident to flight operations may turn out to be less than it appears at first sight.
While the end result could have been much worse the relevance of the incident to flight operations may turn out to be less than it appears at first sight.
Originally Posted by John Farley
An engineering source that I tend to trust has suggested to me that the engine run was carried out without the benefit of the normal max RPM controls.
While the end result could have been much worse the relevance of the incident to flight operations may turn out to be less than it appears at first sight.
While the end result could have been much worse the relevance of the incident to flight operations may turn out to be less than it appears at first sight.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -80A (& early -80C2's) has an old-fashioned hydro-mechanical FCU, normally coupled to an analogue electronic override. But even with the electronics "off" there are two or three levels of overspeed protection, so I doubt that was a factor.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB recommends grounding all CF6-80 powered aircraft
Grounding urged for some GE engines
Los Angeles Times
Airlines should immediately ground dozens of commercial jets with a widely used General Electric engine that in June exploded in a parked Boeing 767 at Los Angeles International Airport, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which released its report Monday.
The report recommends inspection of the popular engine series for flaws that could cause an explosion. Engines that have been turned on and off more than 3,000 times and have not been serviced under post-2000 guidelines, should be inspected immediately.
The June 2 explosion at LAX occurred during a mechanic's ground check of an American Airlines jet whose pilots had reported engine trouble during the previous flight. There were no passengers on board the Boeing 767, and no one was hurt.
An FAA spokesman said the agency would review the board's recommendations and respond within 90 days.
Up to 1,155 engines on several widebodied aircraft, including Boeing 747s and 767s, McDonnell Douglas MD-11s and Airbus A300 and A310s, use the GE engines.
Los Angeles Times
Airlines should immediately ground dozens of commercial jets with a widely used General Electric engine that in June exploded in a parked Boeing 767 at Los Angeles International Airport, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which released its report Monday.
The report recommends inspection of the popular engine series for flaws that could cause an explosion. Engines that have been turned on and off more than 3,000 times and have not been serviced under post-2000 guidelines, should be inspected immediately.
The June 2 explosion at LAX occurred during a mechanic's ground check of an American Airlines jet whose pilots had reported engine trouble during the previous flight. There were no passengers on board the Boeing 767, and no one was hurt.
An FAA spokesman said the agency would review the board's recommendations and respond within 90 days.
Up to 1,155 engines on several widebodied aircraft, including Boeing 747s and 767s, McDonnell Douglas MD-11s and Airbus A300 and A310s, use the GE engines.
Had similar cracks on the TF-39 (C-5) engines. Sounds about right, the AF buys them for the C-5 re-engining program and the NTSB recommends grounding. No one remembers that the DC-10 was doing fine until the AF bought the KC-10, then all hell broke lose with -10 crashing everywhere for awhile.
GF
GF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that the CF6-80 family is the current bestseller, check out the uncontained failure list and see if you think its rate is out of line with other, less numerous engines. 
And I'll bet very few groundings will result - there are enough rotable spare -80's to keep the fleet going.
And I'll bet very few groundings will result - there are enough rotable spare -80's to keep the fleet going.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USAF is getting new engines with new discs. It'll be 20 years before enough cycles are accumulated to warrant inspection. Look at the KC-135 reengine program.
Actually it was National over NM, and landed at ABQ. See http://aviation-safety.net/database/...1103-0&lang=en
But you are right - a fan blade leaving the hub of #3 engine travelled under the fuselage and struck the accy section of #1. I believe that #2 did suffer minor FOD but kept running.
I believe the entire industry learned a good deal from various aspects of this accident, including flight crews NOT experimenting with the autothrottles!
But you are right - a fan blade leaving the hub of #3 engine travelled under the fuselage and struck the accy section of #1. I believe that #2 did suffer minor FOD but kept running.
I believe the entire industry learned a good deal from various aspects of this accident, including flight crews NOT experimenting with the autothrottles!
and C/B's...
