Incident: Cracks in Boeing 787 and 747 Engines Lead to Safety Concerns

Published Date: 2012-09-29

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline unknown
System unknown
Responsible Organization unknown
Impacted Organization unknown
Software Causes unknown
Non-software Causes 1. Cracks in the engine's forward end of the fan midshaft were found, leading to the failure incident [14318]. 2. The cracks were discovered during a review of all Boeing 787 and 747 engines by the National Transportation Safety Board [14318]. 3. The engine issue was related to the General Electric GEnx-1B turbofan engine [14318]. 4. The incident involved a Boeing Dreamliner undergoing a low-speed taxi test, during which the engine failure occurred [14318]. 5. The investigation into the incident involved collaboration between the National Transportation Safety Board and the Civil Aviation Administration of China to examine the design and manufacture of the engine and aircraft [14318].
Impacts unknown
Preventions 1. Implementing more rigorous quality control measures during the manufacturing process of the engines could have potentially prevented the software failure incident [14318]. 2. Conducting thorough and regular inspections of all Boeing 787 and 747 engines to detect any potential cracks or faults before they lead to failures [14318]. 3. Enhancing communication and collaboration between Boeing, General Electric, and regulatory bodies like the National Transportation Safety Board to address and rectify any identified issues promptly [14318].
Fixes 1. Conducting thorough inspections and reviews of all Boeing 787 and 747 engines to identify and address any cracks or faults [14318]. 2. Implementing recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the integrity of the engines [14318]. 3. Collaborating with engine manufacturers like General Electric to quickly address any issues and improve engine design and manufacturing processes [14318]. 4. Continuing to monitor and investigate engine performance and potential failures to prevent incidents like engine explosions or failures during test runs [14318].
References 1. National Transportation Safety Board 2. Federal Aviation Administration 3. Civil Aviation Administration of China 4. General Electric (GE) 5. Boeing Vice President and General Manager Jack Jones

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring unknown <Article 14318> does not mention any software failure incident related to the Boeing Dreamliner engines. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident happening again at one_organization or multiple_organization is unknown.
Phase (Design/Operation) design Unknown
Boundary (Internal/External) unknown The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the Boeing engine cracks. Therefore, the boundary of the failure incident in terms of within_system or outside_system is unknown.
Nature (Human/Non-human) unknown unknown
Dimension (Hardware/Software) unknown The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to hardware or software. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident related to hardware or software is unknown.
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) unknown unknown
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) unknown unknown
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) unknown <Article 14318> does not mention any software failure incident related to development incompetence or accidental factors. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident related to these options is unknown.
Duration unknown unknown
Behaviour unknown (a) crash: The software failure incident in this case does not involve a crash of the system losing state and not performing any of its intended functions. The incident is related to cracks found in the engine of Boeing aircraft, specifically the General Electric GEnx-1B turbofan engines installed on Boeing 787 and 747 planes [14318]. (b) omission: There is no indication in the articles that the software failure incident was due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The focus of the incident is on the discovery of cracks in the engine components rather than the software omitting any functions [14318]. (c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The issue at hand is the physical cracks found in the engine components, not a timing-related failure of the software [14318]. (d) value: The software failure incident is not attributed to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The focus is on the discovery of cracks in the engine components, indicating a physical rather than a software-related issue [14318]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident pertains to the discovery of cracks in the engine components, which is a mechanical issue rather than a byzantine behavior of the software [14318]. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident is not described in the options provided. The incident is specifically related to the discovery of cracks in the engine components of Boeing aircraft, with no direct link to software-related issues [14318].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence unknown unknown
Domain unknown Unknown

Sources

Back to List