As the result of [AD] PW1100G aft hub modification failure, new PW1100G deliveries are temporary halted and 32 in-service A320 aircraft need engine replacement due to a potential dual engine failure:

Airbus decided to stop accepting additional Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engines equipping its A320neo family aircraft, after a higher than normal number of inflight shutdowns and aborted takeoffs were reported on aircraft using the latest build-standard engines.

The problem involves the knife-edge seal in the high-pressure compressor aft hub and can potentially appear on engines starting with serial number P770450. 33 aircraft, according to Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

Airbus says around one-third of the in-service fleet of A320neos and A321neos has those engines installed so far, 11 of which are understood to have all two engines of the problematic standard and 21 just one of them.

Full article
http://atwonline.com/engines/airbus-sto ... o-aircraft

KarelXWB wrote:

As the result of [AD] PW1100G aft hub modification failure, P&W deliveries are temporary halted:

Airbus has stopped delivering A320neo jets powered by Pratt & Whitney geared-turbofan engines and halted pre-delivery test flights after the latest in a series of problems with the engines, two sources familiar with the matter said.

Airbus has briefed airlines and leasing companies and told them it cannot yet say how long it will take to resolve the problem, one source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

What you refer to as a temporary halt I would refer to as a halt of undetermined length.

Airbus is trying hard to generate cash via high delivery rates and Pratt keeps throwing a spanner into the works.

Seems likely the XFW/TLS glider population will begin to increase, based on how long it has taken Pratt to turn around each of the issues it's encountered so far.

Revelation wrote:

What you refer to as a temporary halt I would refer to as a halt of undetermined length.

Isn't that the same definition, more or less? If it's not temporary, it would suggest deliveries may never restart again.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

What you refer to as a temporary halt I would refer to as a halt of undetermined length.

Isn't that the same definition, more or less? If it's not temporary, it would suggest deliveries may never restart again.

Indeed it is temporary and as you say that is a given, so saying it is not very informative.

What is informative is the vendor(s) can't say how long the halt is.

Temporary could be days, weeks or months (and all are plausible based on previous incidents) and they aren't saying anything at all.

Revelation wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

What you refer to as a temporary halt I would refer to as a halt of undetermined length.

Isn't that the same definition, more or less? If it's not temporary, it would suggest deliveries may never restart again.

Indeed it is temporary and as you say that is a given, so saying it is not very informative.

What is informative is the vendor(s) can't say how long the halt is.

Temporary could be days, weeks or months (and all are plausible based on previous incidents) and they aren't saying anything at all.

Does anyone know how many airplanes are awaiting delivery and what the impact of this temprary halt is? Despite being temporary, PW1100G problems have been rather continuous. I dont see much discussion of what is actually going on with delivery delays and planes being grounded. Does anyone know what planes are ready for delivery except for engines?

The real question is what causes the IFSD? Is it a software issue (wasn't the software changed with the mod or was that just the rotor bowing issue) or is it a mechanical issue, whether it be an evolution of an existing problem or a new issue.

Either way, a lot of neo's are flowing down the lines.

There is no official number, but based on observations NEO production rate is about 20 aircraft per month, divided by CFM and P&W. This number will increase during 2018 as pre-assembly is already spinning faster.

If they stack up for several months, it would once again result in a delivery rush at the end of the year.

It's very disappointing that there is still these kind of major problems with the PW1100G. Let's remind ourselves that it's now 3.5 years since this engine had its first flight on the A320neo. How long can this go on before PW goes out of business?

I guess for some orders NEO means No engine options

reidar76 wrote:

It's very disappointing that there is still these kind of major problems with the PW1100G. Let's remind ourselves that it's now 3.5 years since this engine had its first flight on the A320neo. How long can this go on before PW goes out of business?

Good question indeed. Must cost them dearly, now and with new business.

Bad news for PW, and it really messes up Airbus and their customers. Airbus must be taking a cash flow hit and will have logistics problems. "Do you see a sign in the front of my factory that says dead glider storage, PW?? No?? And you know why you didn't see that sign?? It ain't there because storing dead gliders ain't my $%$%$^ business!!!"

My question: How on earth did this engine get ETOPS certified with its downright lousy reliability?
Allowing the PW1100G to fly ETOPS routes is just asking for 200 some odd people to go down over the ocean. Taking risks is one thing, but the PW1100G having ETOPS certification is playing with fire. Call me dramatic, I will even agree with you, but this just doesn’t sound smart.
I hope P&W can sort out the issues because it should be a great engine. But it isn’t yet. Not if Airbus has to halt engine deliveries and all engines need to be swapped out.

QXAS wrote:

My question: How on earth did this engine get ETOPS certified with its downright lousy reliability?

Because it obviously did not show that "lousy" reliability during the certification program. Just as the GEnx never showed a high-altitude icing problem or the Trent 1000 a blade sulfidation issue during their certification testings.

These tests are done with a handful of engines over a handful of thousands of hours. Once you're at "production scale", you have hundreds of engines with hundreds of thousands of cumulative hours and issues that take time to develop start appearing.

Yikes. Wonder if this will impact the A321LR certification activities?

PW and RR both hitting Airbus where it hurts.

RickNRoll wrote:

PW and RR both hitting Airbus where it hurts.

How so with RR? I know about the issues that are hurting Boeing customers with the RR engines on their 787’s but didn’t know about an Airbus issue too.

Trent 7000 delays on the A330neo.

PW4092, PW4098, PW4173, PW6000, PW1100G.... anyone seeing a pattern?

I'm really starting to wonder why Boeing/Airbus even humor Pratt anymore, as anything but a means to bid down offerings by GE/RR.

Stitch wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Good news for CFM and Boeing.

For CFM perhaps as this might move some P&W customers to choosing LEAP-1A.

I don't see any near-term upside for Boeing considering how full the MAX production line is for some time.

And let us not forget CFM burned Airbus and Boeing for a time with issues on LEAP-1x.

I think it is even better for Boeing, as the GTF is the wildcard the A320 series has in its hands. Imho it is the engine with more potential for improvement over its lifetime, but with a destroyed reputation this won´t be much of an issue.

LAX772LR wrote:

PW4092, PW4098, PW4173, PW6000, PW1100G.... anyone seeing a pattern?

I'm really starting to wonder why Boeing/Airbus even humor Pratt anymore, as anything but a means to bid down offerings by GE/RR.

Boeing doesn't, hasn't had any new products with PW engines.

The only PWs being installed on new Boeings are on the 767s for USAF, which is a product nearing its 40th year with little changes (ie no NG/Max/neo). The last 777 with PW engines was on a 772ER (the last 772ER) a few years back.

New technologies will always have teething problems and one hopes PW gets their act together. For advancement and technology sake.

Which leads me to more questions, RR Ultrafan is even more complicated than this with movable fan blades, will RR get it right? There must be a reason GE has passed on this tech for now, even for the upcoming 797, is this tech not mature yet for jet engines (been used for decades in turboprops)?

LXwing wrote:

Trent 7000 delays on the A330neo.

The Trent XWB seems to manage fine though.

I found another article about the PW engine fuzz
http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Airbus-Warns-Of-Problems-With-Pratt-Whitney-Engines-On-A320neo-Planes-1015267886

It seems to be a subpopulation, so lets hope this one will be the last issue that needs to be solved.

With these issues in consideration, and A&B seemingly to be more likely to stick to one engine manufacturer regarding new programs (33n, 77x), could this be a risky choice with regard to the high tech advanced engines and its expectations towards performance and reliability right off the start? If there was no other engine option for the A32n than PW, that would hurt even more.

I posted this a year ago and it got deleted because I had no evidence.

I highly doubt Pratt would stuff up so many small internal parts with a fairly normal core.

The geared mechanism at the front could be creating higher shaft loads than they expected. It would significantly increase the rotational mass and be harder to balance. The low pressure shaft runs inside the high pressure spool which could cause problems anywhere inside the engine.

The gear might be working fine but it might actually be the cause of every problem we are seeing.

Hopefully this isn't the case but as an aerospace engineer I have been pulled into projects like this for my fresh perspective.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

The only PWs being installed on new Boeings are on the 767s for USAF, which is a product nearing its 40th year with little changes (ie no NG/Max/neo).

That’s not entirely true. The first 767s used JT9D engines. The PW4000s came later on. I guess back then there was little need to give special branding just because they changed engine types.

hOMSaR wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

The only PWs being installed on new Boeings are on the 767s for USAF, which is a product nearing its 40th year with little changes (ie no NG/Max/neo).

That’s not entirely true. The first 767s used JT9D engines. The PW4000s came later on. I guess back then there was little need to give special branding just because they changed engine types.

Only a major engine change from PW, not so much from GE and RR, of which the GE ones could be considered PIPs in today's terms. The rest of the plane has generally remained the same, with incremental improvements, nothing big like a NG/Max/Neo/X.

Good lord what a mess. Sort your house out Pratt :O

This is awful news for both Pratt and Airbus. This means a big hit to Pratt’s, as it is currently one of their most important engines, and the A320neo’s production must be taking a hit as well.

So far I heard that Hawaiian, IndiGo, and GoAir have deliveries being impacted

william wrote:

New technologies will always have teething problems and one hopes PW gets their act together. For advancement and technology sake.

Which leads me to more questions, RR Ultrafan is even more complicated than this with movable fan blades, will RR get it right? There must be a reason GE has passed on this tech for now, even for the upcoming 797, is this tech not mature yet for jet engines (been used for decades in turboprops)?

The odd thing is that all these issues on the GTF appear to be related to the non gear (ie traditional) parts so should be well known. The killer for the GTF will be if the gear starts to have issues.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

The only PWs being installed on new Boeings are on the 767s for USAF, which is a product nearing its 40th year with little changes (ie no NG/Max/neo).

That’s not entirely true. The first 767s used JT9D engines. The PW4000s came later on. I guess back then there was little need to give special branding just because they changed engine types.

Only a major engine change from PW, not so much from GE and RR, of which the GE ones could be considered PIPs in today's terms. The rest of the plane has generally remained the same, with incremental improvements, nothing big like a NG/Max/Neo/X.

Same with the A320-200 CEO, which turns 30 in November and still has a healthy backlog into the '20's (especially if this keeps going on with the GTF's).

Interesting how these operational issues only seem to affect the 1100G (so far). While Bombardier have seen production issues on the 1500G, I haven't heard much about any in flight issues with the 1500G yet.

Did they focus so much on the gtf that they underresourced the stanadart part the unit?

Will Airbus get compensation from PW? I am sure Airlines get compensation from Airbus when their planes are delivered late, does it trickle down to them?

StTim wrote:

william wrote:

New technologies will always have teething problems and one hopes PW gets their act together. For advancement and technology sake.

Which leads me to more questions, RR Ultrafan is even more complicated than this with movable fan blades, will RR get it right? There must be a reason GE has passed on this tech for now, even for the upcoming 797, is this tech not mature yet for jet engines (been used for decades in turboprops)?

The odd thing is that all these issues on the GTF appear to be related to the non gear (ie traditional) parts so should be well known. The killer for the GTF will be if the gear starts to have issues.

That's not exactly unrelated, I've made similar claims as william in the past.
For example take the shaft bend/bow. The shaft is directly connected to the sungear system, so it's part of the gear system.
What could be the variables versus non-GTF designs? Higher shaft RPM's of the GTF system and higher torque requirements.

Similarily, the bearing seal issue could be attributed to higher shaft RPM resulting in various issues.

For the high pressure compressor seal, what could be the variables versus non-GTF or previous designs?
It could be a higher overall pressure ratio of the GTF architecture putting unexpexted high strain on an assembly that was lazily copy-pasted from previous designs.
We can't know for sure, but we do know that there is a serious issue there.

A GTF engine is not a reliable/sustainable GTF engine until all variables have been accounted for.

Everyone says that the GTF engine has more margin for growth. That's an easy thing to say, but it doesn't make it true until we compare the final architecture of a GTF engine that is as reliable as an organically improved CFM Leap. If after all the issues are fixed, the PW1100G is finally as reliable as the CFM Leap but ends up with a fuel burn equivalent to the CFM56 due to the modifications scraping off the GTF fuel burn advantage little by little, then the gear technology would have to be written off as an unnecessary piece of technology...

EASA said aircraft with two affected engines can only operate three more cycles. It is also ordering extended-range, twin-engine operations (ETOPS) limitations. Airbus has issued an Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) providing instructions “to de-pair the affected engines and discontinue [ETOPS] for aircraft fitted with affected engines,” according to EASA.

EASA said the batch of affected engines begins with serial number P770450, but neither the aircraft manufacturer nor the agency disclosed what airlines are operating aircraft with affected engines.

http://atwonline.com/engines/easa-issue ... -directive

I find it weird that as big a company as UTC is struggling with all of these separate things. It proves that the engine was not mature at certification.
As for CFM and the Leap, I think that they have delivery delays of their own and it's not like they could increase production rates overnight.
Airbus has several options if the delay is expected to be long. They could revert to producing CEO's to the benefit of IAE and CFM, or invest in the ramp up the Cseries which seems surprisingly unaffected by the issues and could be offered as interim lift until the NEO's are reliable enough.
The latter would also help PW, which could move resources from the PW1100G to build more PW1500G's until the issues are all fixed.

neromancer wrote:

Interesting how these operational issues only seem to affect the 1100G (so far). While Bombardier have seen production issues on the 1500G, I haven't heard much about any in flight issues with the 1500G yet.

If I remember right the 1500G mounts are both on the core of the engine while the 1100G is 1 on the fan case & 1 on the core. This could be causing a torking issue that affects stability of the core.

There is a problem with all PW1100G engines or with just specific ones?

(“The problem involves the knife-edge seal in the high-pressure compressor aft hub and can potentially appear on engines starting with serial number P770450. 33 aircraft, according to Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency”)?

jeffrey0032j wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

PW4092, PW4098, PW4173, PW6000, PW1100G.... anyone seeing a pattern?

I'm really starting to wonder why Boeing/Airbus even humor Pratt anymore, as anything but a means to bid down offerings by GE/RR.

Boeing doesn't, hasn't had any new products with PW engines.

The only PWs being installed on new Boeings are on the 767s for USAF, which is a product nearing its 40th year with little changes (ie no NG/Max/neo). The last 777 with PW engines was on a 772ER (the last 772ER) a few years back.

I'm well aware of that.

Pratt however, has bid for nearly every new product Boeing and Airbus have made since, they just haven't been selected for most.

My point is, I'm not sure there's a point in them bidding, other than to keep GE/RR honest.

AirLawyer wrote:

There is a problem with all PW1100G engines or with just specific ones?

(“The problem involves the knife-edge seal in the high-pressure compressor aft hub and can potentially appear on engines starting with serial number P770450. 33 aircraft, according to Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency”)?

If Airbus has stopped accepting deliveries, it means that there is a problem with the current production standard.

But also remember that although the 787 was almost 3 years late, frames were not the only problem. Engines were not ,IIRC, up to specs as those first frames were ready to fly.

Wondering just how contractually difficult it would be to implement a switch to Leap 1A for carriers that run out of patience with the GTF. I imagine it would be a nightmare legally and logistically for them and for Airbus. But if P&W can't get a handle on these issues soon, hopefully there's a contract clause that might allow for it. A shame, the GTF offered tantalizing gains in fuel efficiency but if it remains unreliable, I can see some customers bailing on it for the Leap 1A. What a headache for Airbus, if that were to come about. At least the A320NEO didn't have a sole source engine maker and Airbus can be gratified they didn't go that route. But it's still going to be a monumental worry for them if Pratt doesn't get this sorted out fairly soon.

AvObserver wrote:

Wondering just how contractually difficult it would be to implement a switch to Leap 1A for carriers that run out of patience with the GTF. I imagine it would be a nightmare legally and logistically for them and for Airbus. But if P&W can't get a handle on these issues soon, hopefully there's a contract clause that might allow for it. A shame, the GTF offered tantalizing gains in fuel efficiency but if it remains unreliable, I can see some customers bailing on it for the Leap 1A. What a headache for Airbus, if that were to come about. At least the A320NEO didn't have a sole source engine maker and Airbus can be gratified they didn't go that route. But it's still going to be a monumental worry for them if Pratt doesn't get this sorted out fairly soon.

You would have to substantially slow delivery rates if lots of people bailed on the engine. CFM would need lots of time to spin up more production .

bigjku wrote:

AvObserver wrote:

Wondering just how contractually difficult it would be to implement a switch to Leap 1A for carriers that run out of patience with the GTF. I imagine it would be a nightmare legally and logistically for them and for Airbus. But if P&W can't get a handle on these issues soon, hopefully there's a contract clause that might allow for it. A shame, the GTF offered tantalizing gains in fuel efficiency but if it remains unreliable, I can see some customers bailing on it for the Leap 1A. What a headache for Airbus, if that were to come about. At least the A320NEO didn't have a sole source engine maker and Airbus can be gratified they didn't go that route. But it's still going to be a monumental worry for them if Pratt doesn't get this sorted out fairly soon.

You would have to substantially slow delivery rates if lots of people bailed on the engine. CFM would need lots of time to spin up more production .

Agreed, a nightmare for all concerned, even for CFM which would be challenged to ramp up production far beyond planned levels; as it is, it's already producing Leap variants at full tilt.

PW4000s on 767s had their issues initially. Lots of ADs/SBs. But eventually sorted.
CFM appears to have issues delivering engines in time for the 737MAX. Customers have been warned of potential late deliveries.

Indigo has been cancelling more flights as it was forced to ground 3 aircraft due to recurring problems with the PW1100G.

IndiGo grounds three A320 neo planes on engine woes

Wonder if Indigo will sue P&W and switch over to the LEAP option for its remaining 280+ aircraft on order? They have power by the hour contracts so it should be relatively easier to make the switch. It will be history repeating itself in a way. Indian Airlines had sued IAE in the early-90's because of the problems with the then new V2500 engines.

P&W f-ed up big with the 1100 programme.

AvObserver wrote:

At least the A320NEO didn't have a sole source engine maker and Airbus can be gratified they didn't go that route. But it's still going to be a monumental worry for them if Pratt doesn't get this sorted out fairly soon.

There is sufficient volume in the A320 family to have more than one engine maker. However, I think Airbus and Boeing will be wary of selecting PW as a sole source for any new widebody programme in future as PW has a long track record of "teething problems" with their new engine designs.

Airbus and Boeing should also probably set their customers' expectations of step change improvement in economics of new aircraft correctly. It is increasingly difficult to get a 20% reduction in fuel consumption these days. So airlines should be prepared to accept something lower.

Does anyone know what airline(s) will be the most affected by this issue? EASA EAD is basically grounding several planes and I wonder how hard could be the impact for the airline(s) with that planes out of the fleet for a while...

Gonzalo wrote:

Does anyone know what airline(s) will be the most affected by this issue? EASA EAD is basically grounding several planes and I wonder how hard could be the impact for the airline(s) with that planes out of the fleet for a while...

Indigo 6E with 32 A320NEO's is certainly hit hard. Most of their NEO's were forced to fly below 24000 feet due to the PW1100G issues and they have had multiple aircraft grounded for long periods. Just yesterday, They had to ground 3 more NEO's leading to cancellations.

How does this effect the CS and E2?

william wrote:

How does this effect the CS and E2?

Hard to say at this point. Bombardier, Embraer, and to a lesser extent Mitsubishi are going to have some serious trouble if it affects them as well.

Hi Folks, "shades of Lockheed L-1011 and Rolls Royce with the RB.211"