Over reaction.
I was just reading that a similar 2018 engine explosion happened on a 1996 engine with over 77,000 hours. Can’t wait to hear how many years and cycles were on the latest engine. Personally I think it’s miraculous how much these engines take and how long the last.
Actually the PW4000 series has a history of issues. Grounding the 777’s with the PW engine is absolutely appropriate
I have questions I’ve not seen covered in the media. Denver to Hawaii, immediate return after TO, I imagine the 777 landed heavy due to large fuel load. Did this result in damage to the aircraft?
Did the engine ingest a bird, a drone, etc?
The explosion resulted in catastrophic damage but wasn’t it “contained” within the cowling?
Agreed. Turbine aircraft that land overweight typically have a specific inspection required, but it’s not usually a big deal.
Is this another case of a corporation taking profits over peoples safety?
Just asking…
One must first look up the concern for “peoples safety” in non-corporate China/Russia to get context for your assertion.
Looks like an N1 blade failure in the parked aircraft picture. There were two engines offered by Boeing for the 777. This one which has a bit more power than the Rolls Royce Trent 892, rated at 90,000 pounds of thrust on each side. The Rolls is more reliable. Still think about 90,000 pounds of thrust, more thrust than the original Redstone Missile that put John Glen into obit, and the B777 has two of them.
In any case the 777 has been a very successful aircraft, reliable and does the job. The engines are not Boeings problems other than hanging them on the aircraft, they are the manufacturers problems.
Which corporation, Boeing, no. Pratt maybe. The supplier, maybe. That’s what the investigation is all about.
Looks like an N1 blade failure in the parked aircraft picture. There were two engines offered by Boeing for the 777. This one which has a bit more power than the Rolls Royce Trent 892, rated at 90,000 pounds of thrust on each side. The Rolls is more reliable. Still think about 90,000 pounds of thrust, more thrust than the original Redstone Missile that put John Glen into obit, and the B777 has two of them.
In any case the 777 has been a very successful aircraft, reliable and does the job. The engines are not Boeings problems other than hanging them on the aircraft, they are the manufacturers problems.
Um, not to nit pick, but John Glenn rode to orbit on an Atlas missile. The Redstone was used for the suborbital flights of Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom. Both rockets were modified nuclear warhead military rockets. The Redstone was a direct descendant of the German V-2 and used the same ethanol and LOX fuel combination. It was intended as a short-range SRBM for tactical duty in NATO defense of Western Europe. It had a maximum range of about 100 miles and was never intended to actually reach orbit. The Atlas was a long-range ICBM designed to launch from U.S. soil and hit targets inside the Soviet Union. It used the more “modern” fuel combination of kerosene and LOX. I don’t know what the throw weight capacity of the Redstone was, but the original Atlas was capable of putting about 6,000 pounds into low earth orbit. In any case, each engine on the 777 does produce more thrust than either rocket. Your useless trivia for the day…
I have flown the 777 the last 7 years. If it can takeoff, it can return, even single-engine, to the same runway and can autoland if needed. It is an amazing aircraft.