mooneyguy
been around forever
Below is a article reposted from the Daily Launch. I'm curious to here from CRJ-200 people what your take is of this?
NTSB finds safety risks for CF34-3B1s' fan blades "unacceptably high."
Aviation Week (3/6, Fiorino) reported, "Defective fan blades on General Electric CF34-3B1s should be taken out of service before another in-flight fire or engine failure occurs," according to the NTSB, which classified "the associated safety risks" as "unacceptably high" in a March 5 recommendation letter. The NTSB "cites two previous failures, both involving Bombardier CRJ-200s." In the first instance, "nspectors determined that a fan blade...fractured and separated below the platform in the disk attachment area" while a plane was in flight, which "resulted in extensive thermal" and "engine mechanical damage, including a crack in the engine accessory gearbox." In the second instance, "inspectors determined that the blade in the No. 2 (right) engine separated below the platform in the blade attachment area." Aviation Week noted, "In both events, the low pressure turbine case-to-turbine transition case flange failed, with the LPT case shifting aft and rotating slightly." The NTSB's "recommendations [also] include asking the FAA to require that GE Aviation" modify the engine's design and "[e]stablish a reasonable maximum cycle limit."
NTSB finds safety risks for CF34-3B1s' fan blades "unacceptably high."
Aviation Week (3/6, Fiorino) reported, "Defective fan blades on General Electric CF34-3B1s should be taken out of service before another in-flight fire or engine failure occurs," according to the NTSB, which classified "the associated safety risks" as "unacceptably high" in a March 5 recommendation letter. The NTSB "cites two previous failures, both involving Bombardier CRJ-200s." In the first instance, "nspectors determined that a fan blade...fractured and separated below the platform in the disk attachment area" while a plane was in flight, which "resulted in extensive thermal" and "engine mechanical damage, including a crack in the engine accessory gearbox." In the second instance, "inspectors determined that the blade in the No. 2 (right) engine separated below the platform in the blade attachment area." Aviation Week noted, "In both events, the low pressure turbine case-to-turbine transition case flange failed, with the LPT case shifting aft and rotating slightly." The NTSB's "recommendations [also] include asking the FAA to require that GE Aviation" modify the engine's design and "[e]stablish a reasonable maximum cycle limit."