Following the engine failure on a United Airlines Boeing 777 this weekend, the Boeing Company has recommended to suspend flights with this plane type equipped with the PW4000 engines pending further investigation.
The uncontained engine failure of the Pratt&Whitney PW4000 that United’s B777 was equipped with has shocked passengers, those whose homes got hit with the debris on the ground and everyone who has seen the footage.
Now the incident will spread far beyond United Airlines as Boeing recommends the grounding of all the aircraft that have PW4000’s mounted on their wings.
The impact is dampened by the fact that there are currently very few flights operating as the Covid-19 pandemic and border closures resulted in extremely limited air traffic activity. Those carriers who have this constellation of aircraft/engine will likely be able to just substitute them with another plane in their fleet.
The airlines are probably happier to ground their planes for a few weeks instead of having another incident such as on Saturday:
The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau was the first following the incident to take action ordering all Japanese carriers to ground B777 aircraft with PW4000 engines pending further development.
Reuters has reported about it today:
Boeing Co said it recommended suspending the use of 777 jets with the same type of engine that shed debris over Denver at the weekend after U.S. regulators announced extra inspections and Japan suspended their use while considering further action.
The moves involving Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines came after a United Airlines 777 landed safely in Denver on Saturday local time after its right engine failed.
United said the next day it would voluntarily and temporarily remove its 24 active planes, hours before Boeing’s announcement.
Boeing said 69 of the planes were in service and 59 were in storage, at a time when airlines have grounded planes due to a plunge in demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The manufacturer recommended airlines suspend operations until U.S. regulators identified the appropriate inspection protocol.
The 777-200s and 777-300s affected are older and less fuel efficient than newer models and most operators are phasing them out of their fleets.
Indeed some of these Boeing 777’s that are still in the air are close to three decades old and while that’s not necessarily a problem with proper maintenance and continuous updates to the cabin but still…
The passengers of the ill fated United flight to Honolulu got a replacement bird that wasn’t all that fresh either:
Again one of the oldest planed in UA’s fleet. One has to admire the guts of United’s flight planners.
This is the Press Release by Boeing:
“Boeing is actively monitoring recent events related to United Airlines Flight 328. While the NTSB investigation is ongoing, we recommended suspending operations of the 69 in-service and 59 in-storage 777s powered by Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines until the FAA identifies the appropriate inspection protocol.
Boeing supports the decision yesterday by the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau, and the FAA’s action today to suspend operations of 777 aircraft powered by Pratt & Whitney 4000-112 engines. We are working with these regulators as they take actions while these planes are on the ground and further inspections are conducted by Pratt & Whitney.
Updates will be provided as more information becomes available.”
I think it’s important to emphasize here that while the name of the air frame manufacturer is always in the news when it comes to situations such as these, the real blame is usually with the manufacturer of the engines which in this case is Pratt & Whitney. Back with the Qantas A380 accident the engines were manufactured by Rolls Royce and that lead to a worldwide shutdown of most A380 aircraft.
Conclusion
Until the situation surrounding the engine failure is resolved, the recommendation of Boeing as well as some aviation regulators to let the 777 with PW4000’s sit on the ground will remain in place.
This has happened many times before and usually manufacturers and regulators react by issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that instructs operators to respond with maintenance to rectify the issue. One has to wait what the outcome of this will be while the NTSB, Boeing and engineers of P&W are investigating the matter.
Following up on the previous article, I find it hard to believe that the pilot did not cut off the fuel supply to the engine as shown in the image-the flame. If the fuel had been cut off, their would have been no fire. The passengers are pretty lucky that kerosene is not inflammable, although even flammable is dangerous in this sort of situation.
Someone needs to find out why the pilot failed such an obvious safety procedure.
That was not fuel, that was leftover oil from the ruptured lines that was pooled in the engine housing burning off. The first step in a uncontained engine failure and/or suspected fire is to cut the fuel and employ the engine extinguisher. Hence why the flame is only present in one small section of the engine and completely gone by the time the plane landed because the excess oil had burned off.
Pilot did everything by the book and correctly….the more you know.
Not according to the engine schematics. But, heh, why should that bother you?
The engine was wind-milling (turning) from the air passing through it by flying despite being off. It’s the whole reason turboprop aircraft have feathering, to completely lock the fan blade to prevent it from turning. Jet aircraft do not have such a feature. Smh.
Indeed, A photograph never shows things moving. Watch the video, it does.
You may want to see the other related videos and images (I have seen many). I am very impressed by the nearly undamaged engine ring cover in the guy’s front yard that seems larger than life and got there with no damage to the house or tree.
This is just a giant insurance fraud! We who have P&C insurance will see our premiums increase to cover the cost of the “grounded” planes.
Following up on my earlier observations, I now see they claim the fuselage was pierced and a honeymoon couple was on board (strangely flying MSP to DEN on their way to Hawaii for a honeymoon in quarantine!).
There has been no report, yet, from passengers describing the decompression and oxygen mask deployment that would have been occurred. The hero pilots do not mention deploying the masks.
The only video I have seen is the one we saw on the last report from inside. There are no expressions of concern that can be heard, despite the engine sounds being clear.
It appears passengers were permitted to connect without debriefing.
Finally, other videos show that debris that fell from a mile or higher had contagion; flat pieces lying conveniently in sequence within feet of each.
Rather sensationalised reporting.
First it is highly, repeat highly unlikely that this is an issue for Boeing and the B777.
It appears to be an issue for the engine OEM Pratt to take onboard and forensicly analyse and address. There is a possibility that poor or incorrect maintenance by United could be a factor but that will be determined by Pratt.
Single engine failures are not uncommon, the procedures following such an event are stabilised, practised and in most circumstances relatively routine.
What is of possibly greater concern is the number of such occurrences with this engine.
Further the fact that this failure appears to be relatively uncontained is of concern.
There would have been a wry grin of satisfaction and some amusement by the pilots in charge as they were lauded as heros for dealing with this issue which is just doing their job. Nice though!