Link/Source: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a7b840f&opt=0

Another A320NEO with the P&W 1127 engines has an in-flight engine shutdown.
This time it is Hong Kong Express from Osaka to Hong Kong on aircraft B-LCN
at FL360. The aircraft diverted back to Osaka and is currently parked for the last
30 hours in Osaka.

Any updates on how LH is doing with the small NEO fleet with P&W engines currently.
With Spirit having temporarily parked a few of the NEOs in DFW and 1 that was/is in FLL (N902NK)
How close/soon is P&W to an engine fix for the P&W 1100 GTF NEO engines.

I have been wondering if the PW1100G will be able to earn ETOPS approval any time soon. I don't know what the actual inflight shutdown rate is for the engine but with all the reports of shutdowns, I do wonder if it exceeds the maximum 0.02 per 1000 flight hours rate for the worldwide fleet.

viewtopic.php?t=1353643

see.. the aircraft was on ground for over 29 hours. 6E & G8 have this advantage. In DEL it takes only 6 hours to replace an engine.

anshabhi wrote:

see.. the aircraft was on ground for over 29 hours. 6E & G8 have this advantage. In DEL it takes only 6 hours to replace an engine.

Sure, an engine change at an outstation will take a lot longer than at a hub base.

Lufthansa are sending their A320NEO`s into Heathrow. There was three different DLH NEO`s last Friday (14th April) at Heathrow.

Steve

[photoid][/photoid]

DfwRevolution wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

see.. the aircraft was on ground for over 29 hours. 6E & G8 have this advantage. In DEL it takes only 6 hours to replace an engine.

Sure, an engine change at an outstation will take a lot longer than at a hub base.

A 6 hour engine change at an outstation will pretty much never happen. 29 hours if they had to fly in an engine is actually pretty good.

LH's D-AINA went tech at LHR on Friday, left on Saturday morning.

CSeries uses PW's GTF too, although not the exact same model that A320NEO uses. It seems that the one used in CSeries are quite reliable. What's the difference? Can't PW look at the PW1500 vs. the PW1100 to resolve this quickly?

Worth mentioning (Lightsaber probably knows much more than me) is that the issues seem all to be related to the core, and not the fan or gearbox. That's what I recall reading about these shutdowns so far; the most innovative part of the engine seems stable which is the gearbox.

Hasn't indigo Airlines had similar problems with the A320NEO and engines shutting down?

6E and other PW1100G operators are now restricting the altitude to under FL300. I believe it was on the recommendation issued by Airbus and Pratt. Looks like UO is not.

golfradio wrote:

6E and other PW1100G operators are now restricting the altitude to under FL300. I believe it was on the recommendation issued by Airbus and Pratt. Looks like UO is not.

I was just going to say the same thing.
I thought that every carrier had adopted the FL300 limit. Clearly, Hong Kong Ex hadn't.
Now that they've fried Fifi's motor, maybe they will reconsider!

AA737-823 wrote:

golfradio wrote:

6E and other PW1100G operators are now restricting the altitude to under FL300. I believe it was on the recommendation issued by Airbus and Pratt. Looks like UO is not.

I was just going to say the same thing.
I thought that every carrier had adopted the FL300 limit. Clearly, Hong Kong Ex hadn't.
Now that they've fried Fifi's motor, maybe they will reconsider!

Had a Spirit pilot in our junpseat last week who said they are limited to 29,000. It was the first that I had heard their was an altitude limit on the engines.

AA737-823 wrote:

golfradio wrote:

6E and other PW1100G operators are now restricting the altitude to under FL300. I believe it was on the recommendation issued by Airbus and Pratt. Looks like UO is not.

I was just going to say the same thing.
I thought that every carrier had adopted the FL300 limit. Clearly, Hong Kong Ex hadn't.
Now that they've fried Fifi's motor, maybe they will reconsider!

I agree with your post they will most definitely adopt it now, also that last line of yours is killing me.

flightsimer wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

golfradio wrote:

6E and other PW1100G operators are now restricting the altitude to under FL300. I believe it was on the recommendation issued by Airbus and Pratt. Looks like UO is not.

I was just going to say the same thing.
I thought that every carrier had adopted the FL300 limit. Clearly, Hong Kong Ex hadn't.
Now that they've fried Fifi's motor, maybe they will reconsider!

Had a Spirit pilot in our junpseat last week who said they are limited to 29,000. It was the first that I had heard their was an altitude limit on the engines.

It's not a hard limit, per se, so much as a "recommendation." It was intended to reduce the stress on the #3 bearing during the highest stress period- that grabbing at air from 30,000 to 36 or 38.
That said, it doesn't seem to have prevented Spirit from parking several of theirs at DFW recently, and swapping engines amongst the sisters.

ikolkyo wrote:

I agree with your post they will most definitely adopt it now, also that last line of yours is killing me.

Thanks, I'm here all week!

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How close/soon is P&W to an engine fix for the P&W 1100 GTF NEO engines.

It seems Hong Kong Express experienced a failure on the number three bearing.

According to this document, a fix for the number three bearing will be introduced this month.

According to a Spirit Airlines pilot, the first aircraft has been repaired. All it needed was a software change:

Modification to solve the #3 bearing issue is a software change and modification to the engine replacing an air pressure tube assembly. 902 was retrofitted over the weekend and the FL300 restriction was removed. The remaining aircraft 903/904 should be modified over the next few days.

http://a380.boards.net/post/92045/thread

Nothing serious I assume. B-LCN was flying today.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Any updates on how LH is doing with the small NEO fleet with P&W engines currently.

Sample size of one but I flew in one two days ago and everything was perfect. I talked to the Captain afterwards and he said that the problems were very minor and that [in his opinion, I guess] they weren't a big deal to the airline because they were beating fuel consumption expectations/targets by a reasonable margin.


Read into that what you will.