Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Uncontained GE-CF6-80C2 engine failures

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Uncontained GE-CF6-80C2 engine failures

Old 13th Nov 2001, 05:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: solaris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post Uncontained GE-CF6-80C2 engine failures

N14053: I hope that this doesn't turn out to be one of those events made even more misfortunate by the problem having been identified from a previous event, but with the next event happening within the lag time of the safety procedures. From the AAIB link here: http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/special/gmons/gmons.htm

"On the basis of the preliminary investigation findings and the previous
history of similar failures, the following Safety Recommendation is
made with the intention of preventing further uncontained CF6-80C2
engine failures due to HPT Stage 2 nozzle cracking:-

Safety Recommendation 2001-60

The FAA and the CAA should expeditiously issue a mandatory
instruction requiring operators to perform boroscope inspections of the
CF6-80C2 HPT Stage 2 nozzles to check for nozzle cracking and
distress in accordance with GE Service Bulletin CF6-80C2 72-0952."

go with the flow is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2001, 05:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Being a little shallow aren't we?

You only listed one out of maybe half a hundred recommendations aimed at this engine.

And even with all that experience there has never been anything remotely related to the aircraft evidence shown on TV so far.

I'm afraid that like most accidents there will be more surprises here than obvious links to smoking guns.
Al Weaver is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2001, 05:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

This is also in another post, but was there any debris found on the runway after the departure of AA 587 ?
strobes_on is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2001, 19:27
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Sorry lomapaseo have to take issue with you. there would seem to be an identified problem with the CF-6, not just limited to the modle on the A300, it has suffered some nasty failures and was about to get another ticket from the FAA even before this incident
guardian A300 crash story

as for no smoking gun, why do we have to wait for someone to get shot before we go do something about a problem.

example, back in late 80's 737-400's - which were new at the time - had a series of engine shutdowns in climb (also CFM engines by the way CFM56-3 i believe) while the authorities were fannying around the kegworth crash happened.

too make your point lomapaseo, yes the crash was a series of unpredicted events & suprises(and a pilot error - i am really sorry to say) however the accident could not have happened without the initial "gun" which with hindsight could have been seen smoking months before if it had been looked for.

call me paranoid but having looked at the safety record of the 734 at that time i told my girlfriend of the time not to fly on it and a week later.........

Is tombstone technology still the best we can do?
RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2001, 20:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,419
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Post

There is indeed an FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this engine model pertaining directly to this model engine, and uncontained failures. This supercedes and earlier Airworthiness Directive (AD) relating to similar issues and the potential for uncontained rotating part failures.
http://av-info.faa.gov/ad/NPRM/98ane49.html
Cyclic Hotline is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.