Dreamliner engine inspections ordered after cracks found
WASHINGTON - The FAA has ordered immediate inspections to prevent the failure of a critical component on GE engines that power Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets, adding that failure of the component could cause "possible loss of the airplane."
The order was issued after one of the GE engines failed during a ground test in South Carolina and cracks were found in the fan mid shaft of another engine of the same type two weeks later.
"We are issuing this (directive) because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition ... is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design," says the FAA order, issued Friday.
The order requires an inspection of the fan mid shaft on all GE GEnx-series turbofan engines installed on 787 Dreamliners before their next flight. Periodic re-inspections are required every 90 days or less to check for possible cracking of the mid shaft.
"This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the (fan mid shaft) resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane," the FAA directive said.
Due to the urgency of the problem, the FAA bypassed the usual 30-day public comment period before an airworthiness directive takes effect.
"The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the reported engine failure, the crack find, and that the root cause is still somewhat unknown," the FAA's directive said.
The problem was first noticed when a GE engine failed on a new Dreamliner as it was undergoing runway tests at the Charleston, S.C., airport on July 28. Debris was ejected from the engine and fell on the runway, sparking a small fire and forcing the airport to shut down for about an hour.
Then on Aug. 14, an ultrasonic inspection on the same part in another 787's engine found cracking.
The cause of the cracking is not yet determined, but according to the FAA it "is likely due to environmentally assisted cracking; a type of corrosive cracking that is time-dependent." The agency is requiring repetitive inspections at an interval of not more than 90 days.
The FAA said it is working closely with General Electric to resolve the problem.
It was not immediately clear how many Dreamliners have been equipped with the GE GEnx-series engines. The FAA's directive said it will affect 11 engines installed on planes of U.S. registry.
In addition, the GEnx engines are installed on Dreamliners manufactured for Aeromexico, Airberlin, Japan Airlines, Kenya Airways and possibly others.
The Dreamliner jet is one of Boeing's most critical products. The company delivered the first 787 last year following several years of design and production delays. Airlines set record orders for the jet, as its lightweight, high-tech design was expected to offer travelers more comfort, provide airlines significant fuel savings and open up new routes.
-----
Read the FAA airworthiness directive here »
The order was issued after one of the GE engines failed during a ground test in South Carolina and cracks were found in the fan mid shaft of another engine of the same type two weeks later.
"We are issuing this (directive) because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition ... is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design," says the FAA order, issued Friday.
The order requires an inspection of the fan mid shaft on all GE GEnx-series turbofan engines installed on 787 Dreamliners before their next flight. Periodic re-inspections are required every 90 days or less to check for possible cracking of the mid shaft.
"This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the (fan mid shaft) resulting in one or more engine failure(s) and possible loss of the airplane," the FAA directive said.
Due to the urgency of the problem, the FAA bypassed the usual 30-day public comment period before an airworthiness directive takes effect.
"The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the reported engine failure, the crack find, and that the root cause is still somewhat unknown," the FAA's directive said.
The problem was first noticed when a GE engine failed on a new Dreamliner as it was undergoing runway tests at the Charleston, S.C., airport on July 28. Debris was ejected from the engine and fell on the runway, sparking a small fire and forcing the airport to shut down for about an hour.
Then on Aug. 14, an ultrasonic inspection on the same part in another 787's engine found cracking.
The cause of the cracking is not yet determined, but according to the FAA it "is likely due to environmentally assisted cracking; a type of corrosive cracking that is time-dependent." The agency is requiring repetitive inspections at an interval of not more than 90 days.
The FAA said it is working closely with General Electric to resolve the problem.
It was not immediately clear how many Dreamliners have been equipped with the GE GEnx-series engines. The FAA's directive said it will affect 11 engines installed on planes of U.S. registry.
In addition, the GEnx engines are installed on Dreamliners manufactured for Aeromexico, Airberlin, Japan Airlines, Kenya Airways and possibly others.
The Dreamliner jet is one of Boeing's most critical products. The company delivered the first 787 last year following several years of design and production delays. Airlines set record orders for the jet, as its lightweight, high-tech design was expected to offer travelers more comfort, provide airlines significant fuel savings and open up new routes.
-----
Read the FAA airworthiness directive here »
who did not see this coming with they first decided to even build the dream liner?
I just want to be clear about one simple thing for anyone reading the arguments below. I'm a great fan of Boeing. They have indeed always made some of the best purpose specific and multipurpose aircraft ever flown. Their engineering skills are on par with anyone, as are the methodologies defined by the union rank and file. But pointing a finger away when something like this, or maybe the shear pin scenario happens is saying that the WORKERS, all of them, including the engineers and those doing renderings this very minute to vett designs, are incapable of preventing a deathplane from getting out of the shop. That is what Boeing and GE personnel are arguing for with me here and in other locations online.
@FreeCoffeeNow! I would say as with the GE part which is in question is the problem .
That's why it is tested and retested.
As for the rest it is just like you have stated ...Their engineering skills are on par with anyone, as are the methodologies defined by the union rank and file.Â
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Let us know how Boeing's libel suit against you goes for the "deathplane" comments.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! "deathplane"?  Please document which death(s) have been attributed to the 787's design and use.
FreeCoffeeNow..................................Too bad all you can do is rant without facts.I've been at Boeing for 35 years(machinist's union)and we have never been on strike for a year.They have drugs that can help you!
 @catahoula Too bad you can't see the overall responsibility of Boeing over the subcontractors as being in the form of x-raying and sonics testing of the subcontractor supplied critical systems, especially those including the engines. In 35 years you ain't learned it either, not once as another unknown rolls out the door? And so just under a year, whatever your nickel was over. I wasn't stickin around without work to find out the dates.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! The depth of your ignorance is astounding.  You more strictly audit and monitor the Q&A methodologies and documentation of your suppliers of critical systems.  You don't disassemble and duplicate the tests on every part of every engine.  You randomly test products of suppliers that pass your Quality audits and apply the ISO SPC methods to the results in determining whether further scrutiny is necessary.
This is what happens when you move manufacturing of aircraft to a southern state, Boeing!
 @Seth Maartens What does where the airframe was assembled have to do with engine problems of engines that were manufactured else where in the US?
 @My_Thoughts We Washingtonians do it better. We always have.
 @Seth Maartens "We Washingtonians" wouldn't manufacture and  assemble the engines.  They would be shipped from the same plant that manufactured the ones installed in SC just shipped to a different location.  So how is it that shipping the engine to a different location would change the engines safety or reliability.
Move along folks....nothing to see here.....
So if Boeing is not the blame for putting GE engines on the Dreamliner then its GE fault that the engines fail and fall off. Humm, I bet thats great news for all the airlines waiting for their new 787's
@Windowseat
The customers can choose between the GE engines or the Rolls Royce option.
And your suggestion that an engine failure would result in the engine falling off is just fear mongering.  A midshaft failure would have nothing to do with the structural support of the engine.  In a worst case scenario engine vibration could cause the engine to detach from the wing but I think that unlikely.
These kinds of scenarios are specifically why they design and test the aircraft and train the pilots for the plane to be capable of safely continuing their flight and landing with only one operational engine.
Modern jet engine reliability was and is heavily scrutinized and their history of reliability is the reason that two engine jet are even certified for over ocean flights.
Â
The article is misleading about needing the inspection before the next flight. If you read the whole directive, you will see that credit is given for inspections since the problem was identified. All engines have already been inpected, so only the re-inspection interval is relevant.
 @Just Wondering If Japan has taken possession of their first plane(s), then there are international considerations that have nothing to do with engines inspected here.
This is a GE engine issue not an issues with the Dreamliner that Boeing built...Way to create hype about Boeing planes.
@justsayin Most of the plane isnt built by Boeing. Do you think the Boeing parts will remain flying when all the rest of the parts dont? Just wait for the "Fly By Wire" issues start, thats where you'll see mayhem.
 @justsayin Is the Dreamliner sold as a complete plane, fueled up on the tarmac? Then THIS IS A BOEING PROBLEM. These engines are vetted, every step of the manufacture is certified, with full disclosure between manufacturers mandated from the initial design right on through to delivery. REQUIRED. You all can claim that this is a GE problem, and I certainly agree. But I already ripped them a new one in their locales too. They are trying to dodge responsibility too. Oh, no. Not GE corporate. They know they are stuck with this BS just like Boeing. I'm talking about the employees. The climate of public non accountability in critical trades is an issue that I refuse to quit on, BECAUSE MY KIDS LIKE TO FLY.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Could you please tell me where to get the secret decoder glasses you must be wearing to read between the lines because I'm just not seeing in this article where anyone is trying to "dodge responsibility" for the problem.  And where are you seeing the "public non accountability in critical trades" even suggested here?
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Yeah yeah yeah........Now that Boeing is opening plants in "right to work" states where the workers aren't unionized, I hope you enjoy flying on poorly made death planes. I really wish somebody would start an aircraft engine company here in the PacNW that would compete with GE and thoroughly test their engines for structural defects.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Again, no where in your comment have you pointed out where anyone has denied responsibility for the problem.
If you'd please point that out I'd appreciate it.Â
 @My_Thoughts You don't see anyone around in a critical trade that is in general a worthless puke who continually is not required to do their damn job? What town you live in? I want to live there. People on here want to claim that Boeing's vetting of those engines they are REQUIRED to fully inspect and test isn't their actual responsibility at all. They want to try to make it seem like no one knows anything at all about Q and ISO and all the other certification standards for human transport of any kind. They want to act like we know nothing of either military or civilian procurement processes. They want to treat ME like I don't know their damn trade just because I've never machined or fabricated aircraft parts. Yet if I had taken the job Boeing offered me years ago, I'd be a plant floater there just like I end up being almost anywhere. And it would be ME dealing with non accountable people there, face to face. Simply because no one else does it and the business needs it. Union people don't get me at all for that very reason. They want me to stop work because they don't want to work for what they agreed on. Even in union shops, NO ONE will negotiate for me, ever. No one is accountable for what I do but me.
I think the headline should read "GE Engine Inspections..." The issue is with GE engines, not the Dreamliner!!
@Rod That plane was farmed out all over the world and its Boeing's responsibility to make sure its right.
@Rod Be pretty hard to get off the ground without these. Boeing's choice and a rather important part of the aircraft. Hope one doesn't drop from the sky. Don't seem to be able to get a handle on it.
 @Klondiko
Actually, its the customer's engine choice just like the configuration of the interior. Customer chooses which engine brand they want to use. Boeing just assembles it per their order.
This should make peoplw run for their lives- made in China?
 @None It's not saying all the parts are manufactured here but all of GE Aviation's manufacturing plants except one are in the US and that one is in Canada.
So much for SPEEA trying to get membership to strike for more money.
Yeah, I know. Go ahead and try to tell me one stupid time that Boeing's engineering teams haven't vetted every engine that Boeing's ever put in a plane once. Every part, every engine. Then on install, it is Boeing's position to test it, and vett it for delivery. Get Real. Point a finger your own way once, Boeing unions, for all the screw ups. Or is it only non professional non union workers that must be accountable? It's apparently considered much more important for those of us that have made auto parts of all kinds. Must be the superior technology base of a car...maybe it's use related...maybe if cars flew no one would have to be accountable. That's gotta be it. You all wanna cry? Or SHOW you are worth what you receive? A deathplane got outta your shop kids.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Ha Ha!  I don't agree with ye FCN but -- from all the emotion your comments have generated -- there be some truth in there somewhere.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! So have you looked to see if you have polyps,because from your position you should be able to see them.
@FreeCoffeeNow! @My_Thoughts You really need to check your facts before you start ranting. I've never been on strike for anything close to a year in my many years at Boeing, and for a nickel at that.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! After a little looking I find the 1995 strike was 69 days not the year you went on about.  And if you think a company does any serious negotiating while the employees are still at work you don't understand.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Try again,  The 1995 strike was for 69 days not a year.  http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080914/BIZ/709149854
 @FreeCoffeeNow! I'm still not seeing where Boeing has denied any responsibility, nor GE either.  Boeing is responsible for equipping the all their aircraft with safe, reliable engines.  Is Boeing responsible for going over every scrap of test and inspection data they, GE and the FAA developed to assure the safety and reliability of the engines they installed? Yes.  Is Boeing responsible for their reaction when a problem is found? Yes.  Is Boeing responsible for the GE's internal engineering designs? No.
 @My_Thoughts Oh, yeah, the strike for a nickel thing. So if I'd waited on the strike line, I'd have been hired after a year of waiting? How much wage was lost for each on that picket line to get that nickel? How much more would have been earned had they waited a year to get the damn nickel while working throughout? Your financial sense is something. Don't know what though. That nickel is and was nothing the day they got it as well as now.
 @My_Thoughts Sorry for placing this out of order, it actually replies to your involvement in negotiations, union participation, and the idea that it's just cool and Boeing isn't responsible in any way here. So if I worked with your attitude, say making parts for Ford, which I've done, and the current scenario of police car steering failure comes up along with links to multiple police deaths, that's just cool for Ford then, right? Because some assembly line worker didn't xray? BS. Ford knows their degree of accountability, and is responding aggressively. Right now, some tool n die and machining shop is losing their contract, and paying out off the top if they ever want to work in higher machine trades again. Because they just cost Ford the instant sale of 40 or 50 thousand high buck platforms. GE will be held to a lesser accountability than auto parts suppliers are, as is typical in aerospace. Full union membership shops operate in non accountability at every level, many of which allow corporate to dodge their just desserts. Boeing will be held to even less. Yet a deathplane got out of Boeing again. Internally, some are going to get smacked with a yardstick, but it's largely voluntary for Boeing because of the union situation that no one wants to address at federal level.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! Back then your one nickel would have been about 1.5% of my starting wage.  Over the standard 2080 hour work year, compounding it with the percentage raises gotten since then and multiplying it times the subsequent 25 years that a pretty health chunk of change and I'd say worth fighting for.  And that takes no account of overtime over those years which I personally worked a $#!^ load of.
And no I'm not nor ever have been a Boeing employee but I have been involved in the negotiation of and stood a picket line over just such issues.Â
 @FreeCoffeeNow! The SPEEA engineers in vetting the GE engines for would have been responsible for looking at the engines specifications and fitness for the specific application, the test data supplied by GE, the FAA engine certification, and their own experiences and inspections of the engines during flight testing and FAA certification of the Dreamliner.  The part specific  engineering, materials choice and machining techniques of the midshaft are not in their purview.
I see no information in this article that suggests that evidence of this problem had been seen prior to the incident in SC either by GE management, engineers, or machinists, or any Boeing engineering, installation, or maintenance personnel.
In your own work are you to be held accountable for failure of parts you machined due to incorrect alloy percentages in the materials supplied to you.  Do you lab test each blank to assure alloy content, hardness, lack of internal micro-fractures before loading them?  I doubt it.  Nor should you have to as it is not in the realm of your responsibilities.
The midshaft problem whether it be a design flaw, materials problem specific to the two part discovered so far or a general long term unsuitability of the chosen material, or a machining technique that introduces part stresses leading to the cracks, they are the responsibilities of the experts at GE Aviation not Boeing's SPEEA engineers, lab techs, or other personnel.Â
Â
 @My_Thoughts And so if a plane has a midshaft failure and the engine disintegrates, you'll just blame it on me, right? NONE of Boeing's personnel are stepping up to CLAIM their lack of diligence here. Midshaft technology is purpose critical. Always has been. Without it being right, there's no engine. Yet no one at Boeing is required to test it? BS. You go ahead and crack wise, punk, but you ain't wise, and if you are a Boeing employee, you better be damn glad I ain't in your shop today. I was offered employment there 25 years or so ago after machinist training. Two days later the machinist union went on strike for more than a year, FOR ONE NICKEL. Of course, I was doing other work by then, which I was also ACCOUNTABLE for.
@FreeCoffeeNow! SPEEA has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the GE engines, or their installation. SPEEA is the union for the white collar professionals. Some of them are engineers, not all of them though, but even so they are not responsible for a design flaw in the the GE engines. The GE engineers would be, however. Boeing is doing what they should be doing in trying to determine the root cause of the problem. And nobody should be cheering about it, because surely you know that problems for Boeing mean problems for everyone in the Puget Sound area.
 @FreeCoffeeNow! What does a GE designed and produced engine's problem have to do with SPEEA's contract negotiations with Boeing?
I'm a loyal Boeing fan, always prefer their planes to Airbus but scared to death to fly on a plastic plane and will avoid this one for a few years.
 @Lbaba Mee tooo.  Avoided aluminum planes for 50 years when they first started flying in the 30's.
 @T-Prop  @LbabaÂ
Did you prefer the wood, and cloth of the earlier aircraft over aluminum?
 @T_BONE_WALKER  @pete1427  @LbabaÂ
Some of the first aluminum aircraft were the Ford Tri-motor, and they
are still being flown today too, albeit not many in the USA.
Â
@pete1427 @T-Prop @Lbaba Actually the wood wings did fly nicer. They were smoother in flight and fabric doesn't corrode. The cost of building a wood wing is what doomed them and I know there are plenty of 70 year old main spars still flying.
 @Lbaba Most phobias are caused by ignorance of a subject and it's no surprise that you're "scared to death" to fly on these planes because you are ignorant about what they are really made of.
Please remember that as teh article styates this is with an issue with an ENGINE. Made by General Electric and purchased by Boeing as a component of its aircraft. The engineering/QA issues are GEs not Boeing's
 @Lbaba The composites technology they are using is not new to the Dreamliner.  I trimmed large, all carbon fiber, engine cowls for the upper engines of the MD-11s.  They stopped building those in 2000.
 @My_Thoughts Heath Tecna, in Kent? Now known as Hexcel.
 @Too funny! With the Ciba Geigy stint in between.  Yup.
 @My_Thoughts  @Lbaba I think the jury is still out on the durability of composites, would like to see data after 5000 pressurization cycles.
 @LNSeveN  @Lbaba Can you honestly believe that Boeing with the billions they've invested in this plane and the additional billions their insurers would be liable for in case of a failure that they aren't VERY sure of the soundness and durability of the composite structure of the Dreamliner's fuselage?Â
@Lbaba It's not PLASTIC; see Lbaba's comment. It is indeed stronger and tougher, and lighter weight than aluminum composites, as well as more flexible. There's nothing structurally wrong with this airplane, it's a beautiful and elegant plane and a safe one. The engines are not made by Boeing.
 @Lbaba The carbon fiber and kevlar "plastics" used on the aircraft are a damn sight tougher and stronger  than the aluminum panels and structures they replaced as well as being lighter.