Boeing was warned the engine on the BA plane that caught fire on a Las Vegas runway was 'unsafe' four years ago 

  • Federal Aviation Authority warned the General Electric engine may be unsafe
  • 2011 ruling said turbine could disintegrate and explode, destroying the plane
  • BA plane had earlier engine set-up which failed. Warning was for new version
  • Warning advises it must be inspected every 48,000 hours or 6,000 flights - which BA says it complied with   

By James Dunn For Mailonline

Published: 03:02 EST, 15 September 2015 | Updated: 11:12 EST, 15 September 2015

Boeing was warned that the engine that caught fire on a BA plane in Las Vegas last week could be ‘unsafe’ four years ago.

The Federal Aviation Authority found that the General Electric engine, a GE90-85B, had an ‘unsafe condition’ following an investigation.

They discovered the compressor could disintegrate and lead to an explosion that would propel debris at such a high velocity it would endanger the plane, The Daily Beast reported.

Scroll down for video 

Early warning: Boeing were warned that a version of the engine that caught fire on a BA plane at Las Vegas last week could be ‘unsafe’ in 2011

Early warning: Boeing were warned that a version of the engine that caught fire on a BA plane at Las Vegas last week could be ‘unsafe’ in 2011

Potential danger: The Federal Aviation Authority warned that the General Electric engine had an ‘unsafe condition’ after an investigation showed the GE90-8FB had a serious flaw

Potential danger: The Federal Aviation Authority warned that the General Electric engine had an ‘unsafe condition’ after an investigation showed the GE90-8FB had a serious flaw

The FAA ruled that airlines must carry out regular inspections to avoid the fault.

It is thought a compressor exploding was the cause of the fire last week on a BA Boeing 777-200 to Gatwick just moments before it was due to take off from Las Vegas with 157 passengers.

The jet, which was seconds from take-off, suffered a catastrophic engine failure with fire and debris shooting into the wing and fuselage.

General Electric maintains that the two incidents are not connected because the BA jet was using a different version of the GE90-8FB engine to that which was the subject of the FAA warning.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the fire on the BA jet and shows that it was the compressor that appeared to have failed on this occasion as well.

The plane’s engine exploded in precisely the way FAA had warned could happen and caused ‘uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane’. 

Denial: When the warning was issued, both Boeing and General Electric objected to the ‘unsafe condition’ warning and tried to have it removed, but in the final ruling in June 2011, the FAA retained the wording

Denial: When the warning was issued, both Boeing and General Electric objected to the ‘unsafe condition’ warning and tried to have it removed, but in the final ruling in June 2011, the FAA retained the wording

The Boeing 777-200 was forced to abort its takeoff and evacuate all passengers after an engine caught fire

The Boeing 777-200 was forced to abort its takeoff and evacuate all passengers after an engine caught fire

Solution: In the Airworthiness Directive, the FAA ruled that airlines must inspect the engine every 48,000 flight hours or 6,000 flights. As long as this was done, the FAA said there would be no risk

Solution: In the Airworthiness Directive, the FAA ruled that airlines must inspect the engine every 48,000 flight hours or 6,000 flights. As long as this was done, the FAA said there would be no risk

When the warning was issued, both Boeing and General Electric objected to it and tried to have it removed, but the FAA pressed ahead with it.

In the Airworthiness Directive, the FAA ruled that airlines must inspect the engine every 48,000 flight hours or 6,000 flights.

General Electric stressed that the version on the BA plane was a different version to that mentioned in the FAA warning.

The firm said in a statement: ‘The GE90-85B had two different configurations to the compressor spool. The original compressor spool was involved in the BA event and the later compressor spool configuration is referenced in the FAA AD cited in the story.

‘The AD does not relate at all to the compressor used in question in the BA event. The FAA AD refers to inspecting a weld that doesn’t exist in the original spool configuration.

‘The AD was essentially a modification to the operating manual. It’s simply an issue of two configurations.'

Comments (110)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

 View all

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Add your comment

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now