The FAA Warned Boeing & GE About “Unsafe” Engines
Joe Cortez September 15, 2015
Airworthiness Directive issued in 2011 called into question the reliability of the GE engine family used on British Airways Flight 2276.
Federal Aviation Administration documents unearthed in the wake of last week’s incident involving British Airways Flight 2276 suggest the airline, airframe constructor and engine manufacturer all knew that the engine was potentially subject to failure.
According to an investigation by The Daily Beast, the GE-built engine may have been subject to an FAA Airworthiness Directive in 2011. According to the Airworthiness Directive, the FAA expressed concerns about weld joints in five GE engines. Because of previous cracks discovered on engines, the FAA mandated regular inspections of the engines, concerned that they could malfunction.
During the comment phase, the documents claim both Boeing and General Electric asked the FAA to remove the term “Unsafe Condition” in describing the engine. However, the FAA elected to hold up their original definition.
“The unsafe condition could result in … uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane,” the FAA wrote in the Airworthiness Directive. “We determined that this unsafe condition requires mandatory repetitive inspections for cracks.”
In defending their technology, GE said in a statement that the specific Airworthiness Directive did not apply to the engine aboard BA 2276, which experienced a catastrophic engine failure during takeoff from McCarran International Airport (LAS) on September 8.
“The FAA AD refers to inspecting a weld that doesn’t exist in the original spool configuration,” the GE statement read. “It’s simply an issue of two different configurations.”
In a statement, British Airways told reporters they comply with FAA Airworthiness Directives, but offered no additional comment as an investigation is still pending.
While no passengers aboard BA 2276 were killed, the National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident.
[Photo: Steve Marcus/Reuters]
Very disappointing to see yet another article with a misleading title. This is just as bad as the "Pilot caught texting during take-off" headline from last week. I agree with the others - these stories are pure clickbait so I'll stick to the forums from now on...
Agree the title and most of the article is rather misleading. Especially if one doesnt read til the end.
The title of the article is misleading and almost slanderous. The GE is even quoted saying the AD issue does not apply in this case. Please remove the article, or at the least, change the headline. I would expect a little more content and a little less clickbait from FT.
Hold on. So were 2276's engines subject to the AD or not? GE says they are different engines. Joe, do you know something that GE does not? Seems like very irresponsible reporting -- potentially defamatory.