Boeing 787 Engine Testing Malfunction Starts Fire at Charleston
Boeing 787 Dreamliner
A Boeing 787 engine suffered a failure during testing Saturday at its North Charleston airport base causing a fire.
The incident occurred at 4:07 PM when an unpainted Boeing 787 was undergoing preflight runway testing. According to reports, the Boeing 787 engine failure sent metal shards on to the approach to the only operational runway at the airport, which had to be shut down for a brief time.
‘Boeing SC spokeswoman Candy Eslinger told the Post and Courier that the unpainted 787 involved in the incident was the latest one built at Boeing’s North Charleston complex. The plane is powered by GE engines, she said.’
The grass fire that erupted next to the runway was put out quickly.
Boeing issued a brief statement on the incident:
“We are unaware of any operational issue that would present concerns about the continued safe operation of in-service 787s powered by GE engines.”
Category: Airnation
Comments (12)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Air India Refusing Delivery of 787 Until Engine Inquiry is Over | August 3, 2012
- Boeing 787 Fan Shaft Failure Caused Blown Engine at Charleston | August 9, 2012
So I take it hot fragments of the engine were thrown onto the grass causing a grass fire? I wonder what caused this engine to fail? All these new “fuel efficient” engines are so complex with so many parts, there’s just so much that can go wrong!
Hmmm…ANA grounded some of their 787s due to an engine issue…
James, doesn’t this seem sort of coincidental??
*clears throat* ummm…..yeah. :)
Do you think Boeing was testing the engine for this flaw?? It’s odd than an engine would fail on taxi runs…
Airlines haven’t had much luck with these “newer” engines selected for planes made after the 90′s… First with the RR engines for the 777, which caused a BA 777 to crash upon landing several years ago (inadequate heating of the fuel lines caused ice to build up blocking the flow of fuel). And then with the Qantas A380 which had an uncontained engine failure, causing debris to put a hole in the wing. And now the problem with the 787′s engine…
As engine manufacturers try to squeeze out the most power with the best economy, things become too complex. The engine parts have smaller tolerances, and even the slightest defect can cause disaster. The same is true for modern “fuel efficient” car engines. They’re being made out of lighter materials to save weight, which means they don’t last as long. I read a recent article which provided a chart of the number of complaints by car customers, and the numbers for “engine trouble” are ridiculous compared to past reports…
If fuel wasn’t so damn expensive, every plane would have a JT8D or CFM56!!! Best dispatch reliabilities out of any engines produced, and they were designed in the 60′s and 80′s respectively. Built to last.
Hi All:
I am very concerned that the FAA will now allow “LONG OVER WATER FLIGHTS” TO ASIA and back to be conducted with Two Engine jet aircraft.
This was never allowed in the past and three and four engine jets were the norm here for safety reasons!
The FAA now says it is okay!
So Twin JET operation will kick in to high gear, to save the airlines money!
The risk in my opinion is to great!
When a twin jet aircraft has an engine failure, it becomes serious because:….just a few….listed
1. The aircraft will descend to it’s “DRIFT DOWN SINGLE ENGINE ALTITUDE” of approximately 20,000 feet based on weight.
2. Weather usually is below 25,0000 feet.
3. 70% of all airline heavy maintenance is being down by cheap overseas third world countries!
4. The Incident reports of in flight failures has increased dramatically!
5. Add in the strain of operating the “good” engine at a higher power setting for hours to reach land.
United airlines does most of it’s heavy maintenance with AMECO in China. This means that a communist country is maintaining all of United’s fleet of B-767′s and B-777′s! on the “CHEAP”
Recently United announce service to Asia from Kennedy Airport using Twin-Engine Jet equipment.
So we have twin engine jets flying hours from a safe airport of landing in the event of an emergency.
This is like playing “RUSSIAN ROULETTE” now with two bullets!
Richard Wyeroski, former FAA Inspector
FAA Whistleblowers Alliance Member
Richard….dude….your scaring me! :)
I always thought that airliners with two engines could fly overseas. Am I wrong and when did this change?
What about the ever so popular 777? They’re used for tons of long haul stuff, right? Bad move?
Your posts are always so damn interesting and they get me thinking!!
Hey HenHouse:
This new situation is purely MONEY….MONEY…MONEY!
I am sorry to say that as more and more airlines moving into TWIN-ENGINE equipment for long haul over water flight. IE….Asia, Australia, New Zealand Hawaii.
The new FAA Regs have effected Airbus and caused the company to discontinue the A-340, a four engine jet.
Boeing is sitting pretty now with the 767 and the 777 line!
My concern is not aircraft reliability by the manufacturers, it is where the airlines that buy these aircraft are having their engines overhauled and heavy maintenance done !
Unfortunately the FAA has caused this because they “caved in” to(as usual) special interests that only care about money!
As the airlines ramp up and hundreds of twin engine aircraft start flying these routes, I an afraid that we will see the emergencies and accident rate go up considerably !
Remember the FAA is not called the TOMBSTONE Agency for nothing.
I for one will push for criminal charges against the FAA crowd at 800 Independence avenue
Rich Wyeroski
FAA WHISTLEBLOWERS ALLIANCE
Rich, do you think Airbus considered this issue when picking the 4-engine design for the A340? I’d imagine at the time of design, twin engined planes were given ETOPS ratings, no? I never understood how any engineers thought the A340 could compete well!
Chris:
The FAA is the one that changed the whole picture. By approving new ETOPS rules, three hours, versus 5 hours and thirty minutes four engine equipment is dead.
The Boeing 777 and the new B-787 are hot. The only problem is there are now a lot of safety
issues
Air crashes will increase because the FAA has ceased being a safety agency.
I haven’t touched the on the problems of large powerful engines. The reliability is not there and throw in outsourcing of parts all over the world with no surveillance and there will be failures.
My opinion is the FAA will be forced to pull these new ETOPS rules and go back to four engine aircraft. The reason will be unfortunately, an increase in the accident rate.
The inflight failures we are all reading about are the hand writing on the wall.
I can tell you that the FAA Management in Washington, that approved the new ETOPS rules know nothing about aviation. They are lawyers and politicians!
They coldly look at the occasional crash as collateral damage
“SO SAD”
Rich