←back to thread

98 points makaimc | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.193s | source
Show context
markus_zhang ◴[] No.46279955[source]
All 777-200 are less than 30 years old (June 1995 first commercial deployment according to Wikipedia). Considering we are still flying older aircraft such as MD (but as a cargo plane), can United find a buyer for this fleet?
replies(3): >>46279982 #>>46280204 #>>46280488 #
seanmcdirmid ◴[] No.46279982[source]
And..it is the engine, Boeing doesn't even make those, so I'm confused why this is a fuselage problem? Or is it because the older air frames might not justify engine replacements? (after RTA, it seems that is the case, and the engine it was certified to work with is old also).
replies(1): >>46280650 #
1. buildsjets ◴[] No.46280650[source]
First, the engine itself is certified under 14 CFR Part 33, but the engine cowling is certified under 14 CFR Part 25, which makes it an airframe part, not an engine part.

Boeing (Spirit division) does make the engine cowling for the 777-200, which is what separated from the aircraft and caused the fire on the ground. Even in the case of a catastrophic failure of the engine, the cowling and all of it's parts are required by regulation to remain attached to the aircraft.

There was a previous incident a few years ago also on a Pratt-powered 777-200 where an engine failure cascaded into a much more serious cowling failure. Here's an article on that previous incident. I'm unable to find a source on whether the design changes discussed were ever implemented.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777-engine-cover-change/

The FAA in the past several years has had a particular focus on engine cowling components departing the aircraft and causing secondary damage, the most critical example being the 737 fan cowling that separated from the engine, impacted the fuselage, broke a window, and caused a passenger to be sucked out and killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2234-0001