Air NZ 787 RR engine issues

[Infieldg]

My national carrier - one of two engine failures in as many days occurred half an hour into an Auckland-Tokyo flight and was described as "the plane starts shaking and making weird noises and the power goes off a bit and we have to turn around". (edit - a known problem so you guys probably already read/discussed it : "Rolls-Royce told investors in August that 400 to 500 Trent 1000 engines were affected by issues with components wearing out earlier than expected") ;

Air New Zealand Dreamliner engine problems cause cancellations - NZ Herald (http://nzh.tw/11955193)
Air New Zealand says some Boeing 787 Dreamliner flights will have to be cancelled due to problems with the Rolls-Royce engine.
The airline has notified the stock exchange that there will be limited international flight cancellations and delays each day over the coming weeks following problems with the aircraft engines.
Rolls-Royce has informed Air New Zealand that some of its engines on the Boeing 787-9 fleet will require maintenance sooner than previously advised and that it does not have any spare engines available while that maintenance work is undertaken.
A flight to Japan had to turn back on Tuesday and yesterday a flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires had to return to Auckland International Airport.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/rolls-royce-facing-turbulence-787-engine-issues/
Rolls Royce is facing turbulence over 787 engine issues which have left airlines short of spare engines.
Air New Zealand has been forced to ground three of its 787s due to a worldwide shortage of Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
The grounding comes after the airline had two engine events forcing turnbacks over the past two days where the engines shed turbine blades.

[lederhosen]

Two engine failures in two days on new aircraft certainly gets your attention. If true they shed fan blades and with routings like Auckland Buenos Aires on a twinjet I would be a bit nervous if I was on this fleet. At least in the very early days on the 747 when there were similar failures levels, the aircraft had four engines. The years of safe twin operation (777 etc.) with mature technology have maybe lulled us into a false mindset when considering operations with these new engines.

[wiggy]

Given the specifics of the thread is it worth pointing out that it's not just Air NZ having engine "issues" on the 787?

[giggitygiggity]

Same issues at Virgin Atlantic. As much as I love the Rolls Royce brand, they're certainly having a tough time of it these days. Perhaps so desperate to keep innovating that they're perhaps developing faster than the materials/electronics etc will allow for?

[lomapaseo]

Could also be a usage issue with harder use than initially expected, thus lowering time on wing.

At any rate this part is technical and may not fit the general discussion on the logistics of dealing with the problem today.

[NWA SLF]

I don't think ANZ would use harder than expected. Almost every flight is long so fewer cycles with the highest loading.

[Infieldg]

Yikes.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/99660315/photos-air-nzs-damaged-787-engine


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/n/c/2/g/l/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1nc2e3.png/1512680460416.jpg`
https://static3.stuff.co.nz/rsz-np4d2kcwm2be34a196ea-249706b6.jpg


https://static3.stuff.co.nz/rsz-vyddhmhpjdle3ylmxpkm-9e466080.jpg

[RubberDogPoop]

Nice picture of NOT the (either) aircraft in question, but good for shock value....

[RickNRoll]

I was going to say, that would never have got in the air, the walk around check alone would have seen that grounded. Is it volcanic ash damage?

[Turbine D]

If true they shed fan blades
There is a difference between shedding turbine blades verses shedding fan blades and where each are located in the engine. Although undesirable, the turbine blades went out the tailpipe as what they are designed to do...

[lomapaseo]

The pics are showing the back stages of the turbine and blades chewed away from large amounts of forward blades migrating downstream.

What the eye sees is secondary $$$ The damage stems from further forward events.

The major issue is response to the logistical problem of swapping out engines in a fleet.

[Octane]

I find it surprising RR apparently don't have any spare engines...

[ElZilcho]

They've run out.

This issue is a lot more widespread than has been reported. When the cracking was first discovered, RR went around to operators to do inspections. I can't recall the exact numbers, but I believe something like half our engines had to be replaced.

With more engines cracking (worldwide), some being original while others being the replacements, RR is up to their necks in it. :mad:

[Octane]

And the airlines. If it keeps happening would the authorities have something to say about continued ETOPS operations with this sort of failure rate? How/ what/ where will 787 dependent airlines like ANZ find replacement aircraft?

[tdracer]

The shutdown rate is tracked pretty much continuously (typically as a 12 month rolling average), if the fleet average goes over .02/1000 (one shutdown per 50,000 engine flight hours) the Feds will likely pull 180 minute ETOPS. That's all codified in the ETOPS rules (the rate for 120 minute and 90 minute ETOPS is allowed to be higher, so they wouldn't necessarily pull ETOPS entirely, just 180 (or longer). Most 180 minute routes can be flown at 120 minutes - but with less optimal routing (the main exception is between the North America and Hawaii - there is literally nothing in between so you need 180).
Individual operators will have different ETOPS shutdown requirements that they've negotiated with their regulatory authorities. For example on smaller fleets a single shutdown can put them over the .02 limit - so they have different requirements such as demonstrating they've taken corrective action to prevent another shutdown due to the same cause.
However before you get too excited, the Rolls 787 fleet is accumulating ~180,000-200,000 hours per month, so they can have several shutdowns per month without exceeding .02.
All that being said, if ANZ had two Trent 1000 shutdowns in as many days, they're going to have some serious explaining to do to retain their 180 ETOPS.

[Octane]

td, especially considering ANZ routes, crossing the Pacific, NZ to North America. I wonder how many 180 minute sectors there are between NZ and the US?
Hope it all works out soon...

[White Knight]

There is also 207 minute ETOPS which I believe we use here at EK for the 777! I'm not 100% sure as I'm happy to have four engines running on my 'ship!:ok:

[ElZilcho]

All North American routes from NZ can be done on 180 minute EDTO, you just lose flexibility on routing as after the Pacific Islands there’s only HNL/ITO for coverage. But NA is 777 territory anyway.

IAH would be problematic as the routing would be too far north, but not impossible. EZE is the real issue as routing that far North would simply not be economically viable.

If the 787 gets chopped back to 180EDTO (or less) then I suspect the company will simply shift some 777’s off Asian or HNL routes to pickup IAH/EZE.

So the real issue will be around capacity while Aircraft are grounded rather than EDTO. 240 EDTO is often used for route flexibility across the pacific and I think our max is 330 for EZE. Both of which the 777’s have approval for.

[lomapaseo]

When you have a common cause failure condition, ETOPS assumptions are no longer valid. Instead you work with the inspection results to look at probabilities of common cause adding to independent cause assessments.

[Veruka Salt]

Mate’s wife was on a VS 787 which returned to HKG 4 hours after departure, enroute LHR, a couple of nights ago. Was this an engine problem?

[sangiovese.]

HKG return, nope nothing to do with RR on that one, other tech issue unrelated

[Flightmech]

Earlier this week VS had 2 787s parked up outside their LHR hangar. One with no engines and the other with just one. I assume they are getting sufficiently compensated by RR.

[KelvinD]

Doesn't this issue go back a couple of months to some issues with ANA aircraft? I seem to remember RR discovered an issue with premature wear or something and began a programme of engine inspections/replacements. I think a couple of the LHR based VS planes were taken out of circulation for a while recently because of this.

[tdracer]

Just to be clear, the .02 shutdown rate is for 180 minute ETOPS - longer ETOPS have correspondingly better shutdown rate requirements. However 180 is important because as I mentioned earlier 180 ETOPS will get you anywhere in the world (although may require less than optimal routing).
No first hand knowledge here but I suspect Kelvin is right and this is the same issue that ANA had. As I understood it - the ANA issue was related to corrosion of the turbine blade. At the high temperatures that turbines operate at, many materials corrode that don't corrode at lower temps - and some of the contaminates and impurities in the air and fuel act as catalysts at high temperatures.
The engine companies try to prevent this with various coatings - I suspect whatever coatings Rolls is using on the Trent 1000 are not working as well as they'd planned...

[Chris2303]

I think I have said this before but is it possible that the industry has gone a step too far with respect to technology and big airframes/powerplants?

[T28B]

Chris, that's a rather open ended and imprecise question. What do you mean by a "step too far" given the size and power of, for example, the engines on the A380.

[eppy]

I am very interested in these recent reliability events in terms of terms of ETOPS certification process. I'm wondering if a crack (pun not intended) has been found in the certification methodology that has been implemented.

To obtain ETOPS certification, a new model aircraft must conduct a mandated number of hours of operation of the engine type without shutdown required, during the certification period. However, no consideration is given or mandated based on engine wear (number of hours of operation) vs probability of failure.

To maintain a specific ETOPS certification, i.e. ETOPS 75-370, requires that the service history of aircraft using the engine type demonstrate an IFSD (in flight shut down) rate due of less than the specific rate: e.g. 0.01% per 1000 hours for ETOPS 180.

Herein lies the problem. The IFSD rate is averaged across all engines of the certified type, regardless of operational hours. It does not take in the scenario where newer engines are extremely reliable and older engines have a dramatic drop in the reliability rate.

If separate samples were taken by say every 1000 hours of engine life, with the ETOPS rating concurrent with the average IFSD within each 1000 hour period, then I would feel comfortable, but this isn't the methodology used. The high reliability of newer engines (higher at the moment for the B787 as a newer model) can mask the effective unreliability of high operational hour engines.

[ElZilcho]

ETOPS/EDTO certification is part of the equation, but an Airlines approval comes from the regulator.

Regardless of what becomes of the 789's certification, individual regulators might start knocking them back to 180 or less until the Engine issues are resolved.

[sid-star]

All North American routes from NZ can be done on 180 minute EDTO, you just lose flexibility on routing as after the Pacific Islands there’s only HNL/ITO for coverage. But NA is 777 territory anyway.

IAH would be problematic as the routing would be too far north, but not impossible. EZE is the real issue as routing that far North would simply not be economically viable.

If the 787 gets chopped back to 180EDTO (or less) then I suspect the company will simply shift some 777’s off Asian or HNL routes to pickup IAH/EZE.

So the real issue will be around capacity while Aircraft are grounded rather than EDTO. 240 EDTO is often used for route flexibility across the pacific and I think our max is 330 for EZE. Both of which the 777’s have approval for.
Yes, it's a 330 min EDTO approval on the B 789. I'm sure the necessary internal and regulatory risk assessments have taken place with prudent outcomes.

[lomapaseo]

It does not take in the scenario where newer engines are extremely reliable and older engines have a dramatic drop in the reliability rate.

Your presumptions are not valid.

Overall (millions of hours) there is such a thing as a bath tub rate high during the learning process of what's near perfect and what doesn't work as expected. These kind of problems get high attention and only after enough hours are ETOPs considered. Then there is the mature rate where wear-out rates are kept track of in scheduled maintenance. In the end the rate often goes up when the product line moves to third tier operators with less diligence.

Meanwhile as I said in my earlier post, this problem, as described so far, is a common cause risk aggravated by a much faster and less defined wear-out rate that has little bearing on the ETOPS data assumptions. As such, day to day inspection results predict the liklihood of any two engines on the same aircraft failing in the same flight.

The fleet mix needs to address this by combinations of engines in and out of the new and changing maintenance schedule. Hence the available engine resource problem until enough "fixed" engines are available to match route structure.

ETOPs is not a protector when you are dealing with dual engine common cause failures since it only assesses the very small probabilities of independent failures

[aeromech3]

We used to plan to avoid engines on a twin being of similar life since O/H; of course this did incur extra non essential engine changes, hence costs, I wonder if this is still a practice?

[Cloud Cutter]

However 180 is important because as I mentioned earlier 180 ETOPS will get you anywhere in the world (although may require less than optimal routing).

Disagree. Auckland-Buenos Aires would not be practical. I think you'd struggle with Perth-Joberg too, for example.

Only one of the two events was a shutdown in terms of EDTO stats.

[RickNRoll]

Chris, that's a rather open ended and imprecise question. What do you mean by a "step too far" given the size and power of, for example, the engines on the A380.

It's more the pushing of the limits of efficiency.

[tdracer]

Disagree. Auckland-Buenos Aires would not be practical. I think you'd struggle with Perth-Joberg too, for example.
Hence the difference between impractical and impossible. With (only) 180 minute ETOPS, those routes are impractical. With less than 180 minute ETOPS those routes are impossible...

[ElZilcho]

Yea, assuming all alternates are available, 240 will get you reasonably direct routing between AKL and EZE. 180 will require a dog leg to the North to keep range on the Islands (NCRG/NTAA) before SCIP.

Beyond 240 is good for more southerly routing if the winds are favorable or an Alternate isn't available.

[Chris2303]

It's more the pushing of the limits of efficiency.

More like have we surpassed practical limits in terms of thrust and airframe design.

[jimjim1]

Chris2303 mentioned:
More like have we surpassed practical limits in terms of thrust


No, that stage was reached in 1943 as reported here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004


... with a time between overhauls of 50 hours being achieved.[8]

Later in 1943 the 004B version suffered turbine blade failures which were not understood by the Junkers team.

Jumo -:- thrust -:- weight
109-004B -:- 8.83 kN (1,984 lbf) -:- 745 kg (1,642 lb) 8,700 rpm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FJ33#Specifications
Dry weight: less than 300 lb (140 kg)
Maximum thrust: max takeoff thrust 1500 lbf

Testimonials - Company - Williams International (http://www.williams-int.com/testimonials)
The Williams FJ44-3AP engines ... and 5,000 hours between overhauls.

Thank god we realised when to stop in 1943 or goodness knows what might have happened?

[Turbine D]

tdracer,
The engine companies try to prevent this with various coatings - I suspect whatever coatings Rolls is using on the Trent 1000 are not working as well as they'd planned...
I also suspect the alloy being used for the turbine blades may be more prone to corrosion than perhaps other alloys required by other engine manufacturers. In other words, if the coating deteriorates, the bare alloy needs to provide a margin for a period of time in terms of strength and corrosion resistance.

[alosaurus]

Not sure about GE having fewer problems than RR. Icing problems in the descent.....high vibration on start etc. That said the oil problems which have always haunted the Trent and its predecessor seem to be rearing their head again.

[mrdeux]

Chris, that's a rather open ended and imprecise question. What do you mean by a "step too far" given the size and power of, for example, the engines on the A380.

They aren't that powerful. 747 had 60,000 lbs out of various engines...the 380 max is 72k.

[Buster15]

tdracer,

I also suspect the alloy being used for the turbine blades may be more prone to corrosion than perhaps other alloys required by other engine manufacturers. In other words, if the coating deteriorates, the bare alloy needs to provide a margin for a period of time in terms of strength and corrosion resistance.

I believe that you are quite correct in that the IPT Blade material has less corrosion resistance. Material selection is now so important that there are a number of limitations and final section is validated during development testing. It is probable that the level of sulphidation experienced by certain operators was not seen in development. I understand there is a solution which takes time to introduce in service. RR will be monitoring the safety situation extremely closely as part of their safety processes.

[WHBM]

More like have we surpassed practical limits in terms of thrust and airframe design.
People said the same with the early JT9D on the 747. Which of course was eventually overcome. That said, it did turn off a notable proportion of 747 users from P&W, who initially had a monopoly on the aircraft, and led to two competitors getting onto it.

[RubberDogPoop]

None of which are causing in-flight engine disintegration nor forcing operators to engine change entire fleets.

So in other words, much like RR then? (Bear in mind the picture displayed is NOT from the incident A/C).

[msbbarratt]

If it’s the same issue that affected ANA, then it is an engine swap fleet wide, with the old engines going of for some major disassembly. In ANA’s case RR handled the situation to the apparent satisfaction of ANA.

Pulling off the same level of customer service worldwide across the whole 787 fleet will be a bigger job. The fact that RR are reported to have made a statement to the stock exchange about the issue suggests that this could cost a big widget of cash, something that indicates a large amount of unplanned engine work.

If they have to divert staff off production lines to get enough manpower together to do the required rework, that’ll have a knock on impact on their production delivery. Better hope Airbus don’t resolve their production issues with the A350!

RR like any other company these days does not have large numbers of people on hand “just in case” something like this happens. Could be a lot of overtime being done in Derby this winter, might be a good year next year for the local car dealers / shops / etc.

[RubberDogPoop]

So to reiterate, not causing engine “disintegration” (it’s potential IPT cracking), and not causing “engine swaps fleet wide” - ergo, it’s much like the GEnx (minus the AD.)

Yes, there is a supply issue, one that’s been known about for quite some time. Current manufacturer blades have full length blade coatings, and the new variant, “-TEN” engine, likewise, is unaffected by this issue. Yes again, I’m sure some sleepless nights for RR execs....

[patm92]

Mate’s wife was on a VS 787 which returned to HKG 4 hours after departure, enroute LHR, a couple of nights ago. Was this an engine problem?

Anti Icing System Failure

[ElZilcho]

Air NZ calls in leased planes and crew to help maintain flight schedule" (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99732981/air-nz-calls-in-leased-planes-and-crew-to-help-maintain-flight-schedule)

Wonder if RR will pickup the tab? :}

[Octane]

I would imagine so, surely, particularly because they cannot provide spare engines?

[lomapaseo]

I doubt that any of us can define the "tab"

Certainly it can not be as fleeting as profit and loss or dependent on definitions of how best to minimize interruptions in a business plan.

[matkat]

All RR will be liable for is the cost of the repair + on/off and transportation.

[DaveReidUK]

Assuming they don't hope ever to sell any more engines ...

[Turbine D]

RR will do whatever is necessary to make amends for this incident and preserve future business with this airline plus other customers who have bought aircraft with this engine and others that are considering it.

[lomapaseo]

Of course, but all short of significantly affecting their stock price.

That's what matters to the outsider investors.

[KelvinD]

Wouldn't RR have made some sort of provision for this, however small? I thought a large part of their current production was not sold but sort of rented, based on time on the wing. I think if I was renting engines out, I would anticipate having to recover and fix the odd engine here and there and would hedge against those costs.

[Anti Skid On]

And the airlines. If it keeps happening would the authorities have something to say about continued ETOPS operations with this sort of failure rate? How/ what/ where will 787 dependent airlines like ANZ find replacement aircraft?

Just had an e-mail saying Hi-Fly, a Portuguese ad-hoc charter are supplying an A330 and an A340 to operate AKL - SYD (some) and AKL - PER (most of) for the foreseeable future.

td, especially considering ANZ routes, crossing the Pacific, NZ to North America. I wonder how many 180 minute sectors there are between NZ and the US?
Hope it all works out soon...

The trans pacific are mainly operated by the 773 and 772; the 789 is used for Singapore, Japan, Australia and some PI flights.

[Torquelink]

Most (all?) Tent 1000s are on TotalCare which, in effect and depending upon which TC version, requires RR to provide serviceable powerplants at all times for a fixed hourly / cyclic fee. If they cannot do so for anything other than e.g. force majeure or operator fault they pick up the tab for most of the consequential losses. The IPT blade corrosion issue is so extensive that they have run out of both shop capacity and spare engines - hence aircraft grounded by a number of airlines including Air NZ. The shop capacity issue has also impacted other engines and TC programmes because there is no capacity to undertake scheduled SVs on other Trent models. RR are buying / leasing in other Trent models from the used / part-out market in order to try to support the TC programmes. The T1000 TEN is, apparently, not entirely immune which implies similar issues may arise on the TXWB and T7000. This is all going to cost them a bundle.

[Cloud Cutter]

Bear in mind the picture displayed is NOT from the incident A/C

You've said that twice now - care to elaborate?

[Infieldg]

Yeah I've been hoping that myself. As the OP and SLF I felt terrible misleading you guys so devoted literally hours to trying to find a match on the images from another story or incident (the pic I chose was unique but google isn't infallible) , looking at Trent 1000 pics (learnt all about composite ceramic exhaust cones which was a bonus lol) , reading the report on the Scoot incident Nov 16 in Singapore and seeing almost identical vane (edit - per Turbine D's arrogant and condescending post this is the wrong term, clearly everyone except me realised that so since this is my last ever post in this elitist forum I'll leave it as a reminder of my nativity in thinking my genuine attempt to contribute might be accepted) damage, trying to corroborate Stuff's sources, reloading those pages daily looking for a retraction or update which - being New Zealand where news agencies still have standards - there will be once they know they were mislead, I was unable to prove they weren't genuine.

They may well BE wrong, I'm just saying it'd be a LOT less work if we knew why they can't be from the Air NZ plane pretty please cos I'm exhausted! :)

[Turbine D]

Infieldg,
incident Nov 16 in Singapore and seeing almost identical vane damage,
Err, when you look in the tailpipe of the engine, you are looking at blades (they rotate) not vanes (they are stationary) that guide the air into the blade rotor. So, unless the entire last stage rotor was wiped out, you are looking at blades not vanes. Terminology is important so as not to cause confusion...

[RubberDogPoop]

You've said that twice now - care to elaborate?

Sure..
While we all recognise the speed of social media these days, the speed of publication is suspiciously quick, especially given that it's Stuff.co.nz we're talking about here, not the NZ Herald (who, interestingly have not run the photos), or other "mainstream" (fake news Mr T?) news outlets. What are the chances that a (crap) website scooped the majors?
Secondly, as both flights are subject to a TAIC (NZs AAIB/NTSB etc) investigation, all evidence is sub-judice. It'd be a brave person to leak under those circumstances. (though it is possible someone could be that stupid..)
Third, because even the company doubts the veracity of the photos...(be careful, that pause is there for a reason...)

Mr Morgan may have corroborated the decription of the event, I'm unaware that any AirNZ rep has confirmed the photos are the incident engine.
Where are the photos of the second engine?

Infieldg, no-one thinks you misled the viewers, you have posted apparently the ONLY photos taken of the engine (just the two then?), as reported by the NZ equivalent of the Daily Mail. Recently we had a P-3 Orion circling Auckland on ONE engine during an emergency. Stuff post Airbus pictures when they report a Boeing issue without a second thought. Think of their pictures as "representative", not necessarily "actual". With that in mind, save your energy, a retraction you will not see.
If your mental well-being is predicated on acceptance by this crowd, I'd suggest another website.

Cloud, you'd have some inside word wouldn't you?

[vapilot2004]

tdracer,

I also suspect the alloy being used for the turbine blades may be more prone to corrosion than perhaps other alloys required by other engine manufacturers. In other words, if the coating deteriorates, the bare alloy needs to provide a margin for a period of time in terms of strength and corrosion resistance.

I understand the coatings are ceramic with the nickel alloy at the core having a melt point several hundred degrees short of the temps seen in that stage of the engine.

Doesn't this issue go back a couple of months to some issues with ANA aircraft? I seem to remember RR discovered an issue with premature wear or something and began a programme of engine inspections/replacements. I think a couple of the LHR based VS planes were taken out of circulation for a while recently because of this.

Yes, this happened summer, years past (2016). The initial findings suggested a vibration problem in the intermediate stage turbine rotor. Additionally, the same blades are subject to an abnormal amount of corrosion. RR said they would redesign the blades and refit them across the fleet, which was to begin in early 2017. The cost is reported to be in excess of £60M, without including compensation figures.

According to RR, the corrosion problem is more likely to appear on long haul flights due to the nature of the corrosion process. A separate issue, involving the IP compressor blades is currently under an EASA mandate review for early inspection to avoid a blade out event, of which three have been reported so far, while RR works on a solution.

[Turbine D]

Originally Posted by vapilot2004
I understand the coatings are ceramic with the nickel alloy at the core having a melt point several hundred degrees short of the temps seen in that stage of the engine.
I think that would be a misjudgment if true.

Most modern nickel-base alloys have a melting point above 900°C. If the temperatures exceed the melting point of the base alloy in the early stage of the LP turbine (IP turbine in RR jargon), the blades need to be air-cooled like what is done in the HP turbine. Certainly ceramic coatings can and do improve the temperature margin between the melting point of the alloy and the actual temperature of the air passing over the ceramic coating. Ceramic coatings are made up generally of four layers of differing materials. Ceramic TBC (thermal barrier coatings) fail through various degradation modes that include mechanical rumpling of the bond coat during thermal cyclic exposure, accelerated oxidation, hot corrosion and molten deposit degradation. There are also issues with oxidation. Sometimes, not well matched thermal expansion coefficients between the coating layers lead to coating cracking and coating failure. Areas of the ceramic TBCs can get stripped off, which reduces the life of the metal drastically, which leads to thermal fatigue and eventual failure.

[lomapaseo]

Mostly agree
but;

taking other's posts into account I'm not sure there is agreement what area of the engine is the one wearing out. Setting aside the original title of the thread, which unfortunately refers to a specific airline's flight. I only offer a general comment on the mysteriously sourced photos above. That damage as seen, appears to be secondary to something coming loose upstream in the turbine. It could very well be in stages that are coated.

As such while the gas temperature may be very high compared to melting points, the metal temperature itself is expected to be much cooler due to cooling air. So the idea of the coating is to provide an erosion barrier between the gas and the susceptible metal underneath the coating.

In this case discussions need to be careful about direct comparisons between engine gas temperatures and bulk metal melting temperatures.

[packapoo]

Is anyone able to update on ANZ's latest position on getting the two downed birds back in the air?

[TimGriff6]

EASA EAD 2017-0253-E: ROLLS-ROYCE plc Trent 1000 Engines: Engine Removal / De-Pairing

Looks like a lot of disruption is coming up over the next few weeks?
It is an interesting concept to sell to the public. 'Don't worry about it, we only have one dodgy engine on today's flight so we should get where we're going.'

[Groundloop]

That EAD only applies to 15 specific individual engines.

[RevMan2]

Air NZ's 787 ETOPS 330 apparently suspended, 777s operating EZE

[ElZilcho]

Not suspended, but self regulated back to 240. Most likely, the only 240 plans will be for IAH and will be operated by the newer 789's that were delivered with the -TEN engines.

Asia and HNL (the bulk of 789 sectors) don't require 240.

777 has taken over EZE for the next few months yes. 240 works, but is not without it's limitations on that route.

[NiclasB]

Is the current ETOPS status for airlines/types publically available anywhere? It would be interesting to be able to follow.

[HarryMann]

It's more the pushing of the limits of efficiency.

Yes.. exactly. Reaching for the limits of cycle efficiency & materials technology. Size plays a factor but generally in turbines and aircraft a positive one efficiency wise.
That said, perhaps what was meant rather than said is that RR are wringing this one out particularly hard.

[Heathrow Harry]

All engine manufacturers are pushing the envelope (s)very hard - delays on delivery /problems on new engines from all the major players and SAFFRAN booted off the Falcon due to the impossibility of delivering a working engine.

[Turbine D]

HH,
All engine manufacturers are pushing the envelope (s)very hard - delays on delivery /problems on new engines from all the major players
Nothing new in your observation, going way back to the introduction of the 747 by Pan-Am. It's known as progress and as often occurs, "The best laid plans of mice and man often go astray." What is new is the instant news made available by the internet and on-line sites such as this one. Bet you never saw the newly introduced to service Pan-Am 747s parked at JFK with cement blocks on the wings because of lack of engines due to a HPT technical problem.

[parabellum]

consequential losses.


Which are insurable, at a price and with stringent Ts & Cs, depends whether RR bought the option to insure and protect the share price. Not the first time RR have had major engine problems and survived. As soon as RR saw the first engine to be affected one likes to think they will have anticipated and laid plans for what is happening now. Probably impossible to avoid considerable disruption though.

[logopop]

Financial newspaper 'Hegnar' just reporting that Norwegian has decided to replace engines on 21 Dreamliners with Trent 1000 TEN's. Will be covered by the manufacturer.

[Torquelink]

I wonder if they considered buying GenX engines instead - the pylon / installation is applicable to both types? Presumably, RR could not afford to let them defect and made an offer that Norwegian couldn't refuse . .

[DaveReidUK]

the pylon / installation is applicable to both types?

It would be very unusual for that to be the case. Normally a pylon is specific to a particular engine family.

[Lord Bracken]

It would be very unusual for that to be the case. Normally a pylon is specific to a particular engine family.

Not the 787, a common pylon for GE/RR - first time this has been done.

[DaveReidUK]

Not the 787, a common pylon for GE/RR - first time this has been done.

Thanks, I've learned something.

Though presumably that was done to save on production costs, not necessarily to facilitate an operator retrofitting a different engine.

[Less Hair]

The certification is based on some specified airframe/engine combination.

[Torquelink]

Though presumably that was done to save on production costs, not necessarily to facilitate an operator retrofitting a different engine.

Production cost savings would certainly be another advantage but the universal pylon / engine installation feature was specifically requested by potential customers during the aircraft definition phase - particularly lessors - to facilitate engine swaps. The reasoning was that once all engines were on some form of PBH programme, engine owners/lessors could compete for business on any 787 airframe over the years and, when an aircraft was being prepared for secondary lease, it could be fitted with engines to match those in the rest of the new lessee's fleet.

When Ethiopian took some of the terrible teens, they considered swapping Trents for GenX but decided against it in the end. If the Trent 1000's woes continue, swaps could happen.

[DaveReidUK]

When Ethiopian took some of the terrible teens, they considered swapping Trents for GenX but decided against it in the end. If the Trent 1000's woes continue, swaps could happen.

Fair enough, though I'd be surprised if we see that happening.

I agree that the common pylon makes sense for lessors, who can obviously make late powerplant choices for aircraft on order without requiring expensive rework.

[Craggenmore]

Norwegian press also reporting 787 engine replacements for Norwegian...

https://e24.no/naeringsliv/norwegian-air-shuttle/norwegian-maa-bytte-ut-alle-dreamliner-motorene/24227528

[WHBM]

When Ethiopian took some of the terrible teens, they considered swapping Trents for GenX but decided against it in the end.
Which seems to imply it's not a straightforward switch.

Are the GE engine's icing issues near thunderstorms still continuing ?

[tdracer]

The plan for the 787 has always been to make the aircraft engines "plug and play". It's not just the pylon, it's all the other system connections (for example Rolls has an inlet P2 probe heated by aircraft electricity - ~500 watts - that GE doesn't need). As Torquelink notes, it helps the resale value to be able to swap between GE and Rolls.
A couple years ago I asked a co-worker who was on the 787 if they'd actually made the plug and play work, he said it wasn't certified but didn't know why (or if there was some sort of showstopper that would prevent it being certified). I haven't heard anything further (and since I'm now retired I'm pretty much out of the loop).

The Ice Crystal Icing issue on the 787 GEnx-1B was cleared about 2 years ago with a FADEC software change. A similar s/w change was incorporated on the 747-8 GEnx-2B which cleared it for ICI up to 35k. To clear the 747 for ICI up to the 43k service ceiling requires a hardware change which will take a few more years to circulate through the entire fleet.

[Longtimer]

Note the possible Etops change.
April 13, 2018 / 12:25 AM / Updated 7 hours ago

Rolls-Royce and airlines grapple with further Dreamliner engine issues


LONDON (Reuters) - Rolls-Royce (RR.L) requires more money and more inspections to fix problems with Trent 1000 engines on Boeing (BA.N) 787 Dreamliner planes, leading to further disruption for airlines and testing relations between Rolls and its customers. Problems with engine turbine blades wearing out sooner than expected have hampered a restructuring program prompted by the engineering company’s declining older engine program and plunging demand for oil equipment.

It said on Friday that more regular inspections are required and would lead “to higher than previously guided cash costs being incurred during 2018”.

“We sincerely regret the disruption this will cause to our customers,” CEO Warren East said in a statement.

Airlines have already been forced to alter schedules or lease other aircraft, but the latest issues could be more far-reaching.
•
Regulators eye new measures after Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 glitches: source

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) plans to reduce the amount of time the affected planes can fly on a single engine after a failure of the other. The time limit would drop as low as 140 minutes, compared with the current window of 330 minutes, a source familiar with the plans said.

This effectively curtails operations across oceans or remote areas.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will also order increased inspections of affected engines in line with actions outlined by Rolls-Royce. Currently inspections must be carried out after every 200 flight cycles.






The two advisories are due to be issued on Friday, the source said.

Rolls said it would reprioritize spending to mitigate the costs and kept its 2018 free cash flow guidance unchanged at about 450 million pounds ($643 million), give or take 100 million pounds.

Shares in Rolls, one of the biggest names in British manufacturing, were down 1.3 percent by 1251 GMT.

It announced the need for stepped up inspections after liaising with authorities over a separate issue with the compressor on Trent 1000 Package C series engines. Rolls said there were 380 such engines in service.

Boeing said that about 25 percent of the Dreamliners flying were powered by the engine and it was deploying support teams to help to manage service disruptions.






General Electric (GE.N) engines used on some Boeing 787 Dreamliners are not affected.

ENGINE SHORTAGES

The need to inspect and repair Trent 1000 engines has led to an industry-wide shortage.

CEO East said Rolls was working with Boeing and airlines to minimize the disruption.

“Our team of technical experts and service engineers is working around the clock to ensure we return them to full service as soon as possible,” he said.






Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC866.8


RR.LLondon Stock Exchange

-14.40(-1.63%)


RR.L

• RR.L
• BA.N
• GE.N
• ICAG.L
• 9202.T

Norwegian Air, which has the engines in 15 of its 27 Boeing 787s, said it hopes to have inspected all of its engines before May 26 and that it had already found one problem that required an engine to be replaced.

“It’s disappointing and frustrating that our new aircraft don’t work the way they are supposed to,” spokesman Lasse Sandaker-Nilsen said, adding that it had canceled a flight from Paris to New York next week as a result.

“We have an ongoing dialogue with both Boeing and Rolls-Royce and we have been told this problem has their full attention.”

Virgin Atlantic [VA.UL] has up to four 787s grounded at any one time while it sources replacement engines with Rolls and has also leased three Airbus A330-200s to help to cover its flying program.

A Virgin spokeswoman said it had been aware of the increased inspections announced on Friday and that the cover it had in place would be sufficient.



British Airways (ICAG.L), Japan’s ANA (9202.T), Air New Zealand (AIR.NZ) and Thai Airways, which also use Trent 1000 engines, were not available for immediate comment.

Scoot, a budget carrier owned by Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI), said it expected some impact on operations.

In December the EASA ordered airlines to replace some Trent 1000 engines.

In March, Rolls said the cash hit from the problem should peak at 340 million pounds in 2018 before falling in 2019.

ng to do re Etops.

[tdracer]

The time limit would drop as low as 140 minutes, compared with the current window of 330 minutes, a source familiar with the plans said.
That's going to really limit them across the Pacific - 140 won't get you from the US mainland to Hawaii - and will similarly limit other southerly Pacific routes.
Between mainland US and Asia goes up along the Alaska coast and then down along Siberia - alternates are available (assuming the weather cooperates) so that should still be OK...

[Airbubba]

I presume the EASA AD will have more effect than the FAA AD.


FAA could put a massive hurt on Boeing 787 this week

April 15, 2018 by Paul Ausick

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to issue a new airworthiness directive (AD) this week that could severely limit the flight operations of The Boeing Co.’s (NYSE: BA) 787 Dreamliner. The problem revolves around a continuing issue with the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines that power about 25% of the 787’s customer fleets.

The FAA’s AD is expected to slash the long-range operations of the R-R-powered 787s by more than half and possibly by as much as 80%. Last Friday the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), issued an AD for all R-R-powered 787s requiring more inspections and limiting the plane’s operation to a distance of no more than 60-minutes flying time from the nearest airport.

The R-R engines have suffered from corrosion problems with the turbine’s fan blades for a couple of years now. All Nippon Airways (ANA) was forced to cancel flights in August of 2016 to replace the fan blades. ANA also said at the time that it could take three-years fully to correct the problem. The Japanese carrier was the launch customer for Boeing’s 787 and currently has 64 787s in its fleet.

In addition to more frequent engine inspections, the FAA is likely to reduce or suspend the R-R-powered 787s’ “Extended-range Twin-engine Operations,” known in the industry as ETOPS. Prior to about 2007, a twin-engine aircraft could not operate more than 60-minutes away from a diversionary airport due to the possibility of an engine failure [I remember the timeline a little differently ;) - Airbubba]. The new, more powerful engines could qualify for extended operations that would allow the aircraft to fly up to 330 minutes from a safe landing location.

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/04/15/faa-could-put-a-massive-hurt-on-boeing-787-this-week/

FAA AD may severely limit ETOPS of some RR-powered 787s: sources

April 14, 2018, An airworthiness directive from the US Federal Aviation Administration is expected as early as Tuesday that could severely restrict flight operations some of Rolls-Royce-powered Boeing 787s.

The AD is expected to require inspections and a reduction in the ETOPS long-range operation to 140 minutes from the nearest airport from 330 minutes, sources say. Inspections have to be made by May 20, according to preliminary information. If inspections fail, ETOPS may be reduced to 60, two airlines tell LNC. A third source didn’t have the numbers but said the AD is expected to be “onerous.”

Until the AD is issued and published, the numbers and conditions could change, one source tells LNC on background.

EASA, the European safety agency, issued its AD yesterday, with an April 20 effective date.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/14/faa-ad-may-severely-limit-etops-of-rr-powered-787s-sources/

[WHBM]

Which 787-RRs is this exactly ? It does not seem to be all of them, old and new.

[pax britanica]

I know that all engine manufacturers have have serious issues from time to time but what does this mean for RR. GE are part of a gigantic conglomerate with huge financial support behind them. P&W are in deep trouble with the geared fan for narrow bodies but RR are not really a very big company despite their heritage and remarkable ability to keep up with and sometimes ahead of the amrket in an industry that places incredible demands on technology.

I am certainly not knocking them but I do not want to see one of the few largish Britiish engineering companies disappear like the car arm did and this seems likely to amke serious demands on financials due to compensation issues, potential loss of sales and diversion of resources from R&D on other projects .

PB

[tdracer]

Which 787-RRs is this exactly ? It does not seem to be all of them, old and new.

One of the articles says 380 engines are affected, which would mean roughly half the Rolls powered 787s (possibly more, since some aircraft may only have one affected engine).
No first hand knowledge, but given the nature of the problem I would expect the AD to target engines with more than a given number of hours/cycles. It's also possible some new build or recently overhauled engines have a fix and aren't affected.

Airbubba - most local authorities will automatically adopt any AD issued by EASA or the FAA, and I'd expect the EASA and FAA AD's to have the same limitations (they actually do talk to each other :}, and they are presumably using the same data and analysis of the issue).

[Dee Vee]

One of the articles says 380 engines are affected, which would mean roughly half the Rolls powered 787s

I'm sure someone will correct my if wrong, but...

As I recall, when ANA started having issues, the RR "temporary fix" was to replace the blades/engines with the same potentially faulty ones, but new parts, so at least they could keep operating while RR worked on a permanent fix.

If that was the case, then they will need to redo all the ones that they did in the early days as well.

Can anyone confirm or otherwise?

I am certainly not knocking them but I do not want to see one of the few largish Britiish engineering companies disappear like the car arm did and this seems likely to amke serious demands on financials due to compensation issues, potential loss of sales and diversion of resources from R&D on other projects .


I agree, but these companies really need to get back to quality engineering. This "agile" disease seems to be spreading everywhere these days, and its just profits ahead of everything. Schedule must be kept, and if testing, quality and corners have to be cut to meet it, then so be it. Any problems will be dealt with in the field as they occur. Boeing have had a very high level of issues with the B787 over the years, and of course Tesla are the latest casualty of this approach.

[Ranger One]

I am certainly not knocking them but I do not want to see one of the few largish Britiish engineering companies disappear like the car arm did and this seems likely...

Not likely; in fact zero chance of that happening. RR are critical; they build and maintain the reactors for the UK's nuclear submarine fleet remember. They'll be propped up by HMG if necessary.

[wiggy]

they build and maintain the reactors for the UK's nuclear submarine fleet remember. They'll be propped up by HMG if necessary.

HMG might be prepared to "prop up" that element of RR on the grounds of national security, but the question might be is HMG prepared to use tax payers money to protect the aero engine portion of RR?

[DType]

Just a philosophical point:-
As a former R&D engineer, I was always amazed by those who would enthusiastically buy the latest development. Inevitably, they got lumbered with the teething troubles, despite our very best testing efforts.
But without such willing customers, all progress would have stalled.
C'est la vie!

[skol]

Apparently charter operator Hi Fly are headed back to NZ to pick up the slack while inspections and maintenance are carried out, along with 100 crew. Must be an expensive exercise, I wonder who's picking up the tab. RR?

[bnt]

According to Scoop NZ (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1804/S00577/global-rolls-royce-engine-issue-air-nz-update-4.htm), the FAA directive includes weight restrictions, and some Air NZ flights to NZ destinations will make extra fuel stops on the way. ETOPS 120 still covers all their Asian destinations, this is on top of that.

[Trav a la]

From Airlinerwatch.

Boeing introduced the Trent 1000 C four years ago on the 787-9. The first problems with Rolls-Royce's Dreamliner engines appeared two years ago in Japanese operator ANA's operations. Since then, several operators across the globe reported engine malfunctions.

Due to corrosion and cracks in the blades of the medium-pressure turbine, the Trent 1000 is already being monitored by EASA and FAA.

After a series of engine failures, FAA and EASA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directives at the end of 2017. Since then, engines with the increased risk of failure may no longer be used in pairs on the same aircraft.

The British Engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce announced in March that the problems would cost the company around 340 million pounds in 2018 and another 240 million pounds in 2019.

Rolls-Royce will probably need to correct these numbers ​​upwards.

https://airlinerwatch.com/airline-operators-to-face-route-planning-restrictions-due-to-etops-downgrade-for-the-787-9/

[Deepinsider]

bnt is right. There are weight restrictions at the ETOPS entry point, intended to require reduced power on the remaining engine to protect it for the diversion. It's warm temperature limiting, and as most AirNZ long haul flights cross through equatorial areas,this makes it even worse. The 140 min limitation would normally allow all non Nth/Sth America routes to be flown, so this weight/temperature problem is major.
(AKL-HNL just fits, it needs 138min!) AirNZ are really unlucky in this Trent crisis, because they bought and operate these planes for very long haul overwater flights, and it's hitting them hard. One plane (Trent 1000 TEN) unrestricted. Two Grounded. All the rest subject to above. Meanwhile, there is a warehouse near the RR facility in Singapore slowly filling up with the backlog of unserviceable Trents. Bosses at both RR and AirNZ, and no doubt many other operators not getting much sleep!

[WHBM]

What is the actual work required on theengines ? Is it fully identified, and how long does it take ? Is there a production line set up for the work, and is the fix permanent ?

[Deepinsider]

If you can get this information out of RR,
you'll be the greatest detective since
Sherlock Holmes!

[fleigle]

The oscillating rotary swivel pins for the 5th. stage stator assemblies were machined incorrectly and require removal and replacement.
:{:{:{
:E
f

[lomapaseo]

What is the actual work required on theengines ? Is it fully identified, and how long does it take ? Is there a production line set up for the work, and is the fix permanent ?

This should be laid out in the available comments to the actual Airworthiness Directive issued by the authorities.

No need to ask RR

[underfire]

Just curious, I have a friend planning the SYD to SFO on United 787-9 near the end of May...think I should suggest they reschedule as the ac may not be able to fly this?

[tdracer]

Just curious, I have a friend planning the SYD to SFO on United 787-9 near the end of May...think I should suggest they reschedule as the ac may not be able to fly this?

Given that United has GEnx engines on their 787 fleet, I wouldn't think a Rolls engine problem would affect them :hmm:

[coboltblue]

Rolls definitely seem to have been in the doghouse of late. They apparently missed the boat when it came to business jet engines then failed to properly plan for the phasing in of the Trent 1000 engines. Their marine division has been losing money for a while as well, there is talk they might have to sell this part of the business.

They also have an activist investor on the board, sometimes these guys are good for a company, but equally sometimes there not!!

[underfire]

Given that United has GEnx engines on their 787 fleet, I wouldn't think a Rolls engine problem would affect them

actually, thanks for the info!

[Deepinsider]

The NZ Transport Accident Investigation Commission has published an initial report which has accurate info about the two failures
and some more info about the newer compressor faults.
Google them ; New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission AO-2017-009
(report under document downloads)

[Dee Vee]

The NZ Transport Accident Investigation Commission has published an initial report which has accurate info about the two failures
and some more info about the newer compressor faults.

Is anyone else appalled by this "Political Correctness" Speak?

The incidents occurred when blades failed earlier than predicted by Rolls-Royce’s risk analysis modelling for the known issue.

Blades aren't designed to fail! And in normal circumstances would have been replaced long before their use-by date. Rolls Royce has been aware of this issue for years. Plenty of time to fix the issue.

[lomapaseo]

Is anyone else appalled by this "Political Correctness" Speak?

Quote:
The incidents occurred when blades failed earlier than predicted by Rolls-Royce’s risk analysis modelling for the known issue.
Blades aren't designed to fail! And in normal circumstances would have been replaced long before their use-by date. Rolls Royce has been aware of this issue for years. Plenty of time to fix the issue.

I don't get your point about PC speak. RR got one of their assumptions wrong about the harshness of the environment they fly in. They revisited and updated their assumption and hence the announced SB in order to continue flying safely.

I don't know how else this should have been stated.

[Dee Vee]

[QUOTE=lomapaseo;10137444I don't know how else this should have been stated.[/QUOTE]

These blades have been "self destructing" for 2 years now, to say they are failing earlier than expected is nonsense. People lives are being put at risk.

They should be saying "our design/engineering team got it badly wrong, all these engines should be taken out of service immediately until a proper and permanent fix can be installed, Rolls Royce will compensate everyone for our poor practices and "agile" development pushing these things out before they were ready and properly tested".

[tdracer]

Gee Dee Vee, don't mince words, tell us how you really feel :sad:
What Rolls is doing is common practice in the industry. The have a part that's failing prematurely. They analyze the problem with all the available data - since this is basically a 'wear out mode', they determine how many hours/cycles the part can take before there is a significant risk of failure. They put some safety pad on the numbers and say something like 'after xxxx cycles (or hours), inspect to make sure the part is still healthy - if it's not take it out of service, if it's OK you can operate another xxx cycles then inspect again. This happens on a regular basis, to every engine manufacturer (not to mention the rest of the aircraft), and 99.9% of the time it works fine and most people never even know it's going on.
This time, Rolls botched the analysis and the part is failing much faster than they predicted - whoops... Worse, they also determined that there is a resonance issue that can cause an engine to fail prematurely when operated for an extended period at max con power - double whoops. So they updated their analysis based on the latest data - and updated the requirements accordingly to maintain safety.

You apparently take issue with the process - well lets consider the alternative. Every time we discover an issue with an aircraft component, we ground the whole :mad: fleet until a fix is identified and implemented. We would all just stay home because no one would be able to fly, and everyone in the industry would be bankrupt or unemployed.

[Dee Vee]

Gee Dee Vee, don't mince words, tell us how you really feel :

Don't you think Rolls Royce are playing down the problem?

They didn't do sufficient testing before they pushed them out the door.
When issues started occurring they declare its a minor issue, and the parts are wearing out prematurely, rather than an inherent design issue
The will get around to fixing it at their leisure, shouldn't be a problem as long as the other engine is still working.
2 years down the track we are still getting engine failure occurring.

Do people have to die before its taken seriously?

[lomapaseo]

Dee Vee
There are operators involved here as well as the airplane maker. It's there problem when it goes tits-up. So no, RR isn't playing it down, they are responsive to the end user and regulator far before you get on a plane..

As for sufficient testing ? it takes years to illustrate a wear out mode failure and to accommodate this all engine manufactures follow the same protocol in running engines very hard for hundreds of hours before they are certified, so no short cuts here.

From the millions of hours of industry wide experience on all engines, a turbine blade failure condition is typically classified as a minor failure condition, it's only when two engines may get involved that it moves up notches.

The rate at which a fix gets incorporated is driven by the safety aspect and the operator's ability to absorb engines out of service. All RR can do is throw money at it beyond assigning engineers to work the job.

Yes the issue is that after 2 years we are still experiencing too many failures $$$ and pushing the risk of 2 engines so back to the snake pit of more pain to both RR and its operators

At this point the data certainly doesn't indicate that this problem is so far out of hand that a catastrophe has risen to the top of the inherent risk of flying.

[back to Boeing]

Don't be so overly dramatic. On the one hand Rolls pushed the design as hard as they could to make the best engine they thought they could. They probably pushed it too far, like lots of items on the 787 (battery fired anyone).

On the the other hand Boeing shut down further development of all components when they fixed the design earlier than they should have. Like all new aircraft the 787 was delayed. Previously further testing would have been allowed and this issue could possibly (not certainly but possibly) have been caught. But Boeing allowed no further development of any components. Which in itself isn't a bad thing considering that all the components were coming from different manufacturers all around the world. At some point development had to stop. Unfortunately this time it bit them in the ass.

Rolls, Boeing and the airlines involved are working damn hard to fix the issue. But it will take time. I'm the mean time the regulators have placed restrictions and testing to examine, trap and mitigate the problem.

[Deepinsider]

[QUOTE=Dee Vee;10137393]Is anyone else appalled by this "Political Correctness" Speak?

Sorry Dee Vee that you didn't like the way I worded this. I'm on the same side as you, and
the reason I worded it so, was that until this publication we only ever got statements from
the PR (b.s.?) departments of RR and operators. I was trying to show that this item was
Actually Factual.... and not massaged by the PR b.s. that had so far clouded/avoided the truth.
.

[infrequentflyer789]

Don't you think Rolls Royce are playing down the problem?

They didn't do sufficient testing before they pushed them out the door.
When issues started occurring they declare its a minor issue, and the parts are wearing out prematurely, rather than an inherent design issue
The will get around to fixing it at their leisure, shouldn't be a problem as long as the other engine is still working.
2 years down the track we are still getting engine failure occurring.


Are you sure you're talking RR and not CFM here ?

Do people have to die before its taken seriously?

They already have... and the self-destructing CFMs sure as heck haven't been "taken out of service immediately until a proper and permanent fix can be installed".

[Right Engine]

Worse, they also determined that there is a resonance issue that can cause an engine to fail prematurely when operated for an extended period at max con power

The opposite is true. The resonance occurs at LESS than Max Continuous power. If you read the Boeing Bulletin you’ll see that in the event of an Engine Failure crew must operate the aircraft during the subsequent diversion and do it at as high a FL as possible to keep the remaining engine out of the resonance ‘range’ and close to MAX CON.

[WHBM]

Rolls-Royce Chief Operating Officer fired

Rolls Royce operations head Simon Kirby to leave in summer after only 19 months in role | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/285537/rolls-royce-operations-head-simon-kirby-set-leave-summer)

[Deepinsider]

Was his role instrumental in this product design/support disaster, or is he just unlucky with the restructure timing?

(either way, it will be very tricky writing his next CV
Noting infrequentflyer789 (https://www.pprune.org/members/214043-infrequentflyer789) comments, someone from CFM might well be needing CV advice too!)

[WHBM]

Was his role instrumental in this product design/support disaster, or is he just unlucky with the restructure timing?Well, it can be a couple of things. One is that when executives are in a "musical chairs" for a reduction in the top positions, costs not exceeding budget is one of the key aspects that everyone looks at, and some significant unbudgeted problem product cost is just something nobody wants to sign off. The other is that while all this is going on, the people at the top are distracted outside their normal day-to-day responsibilities, while those beneath them can become unnerved for their job stability, and of course it's your best people who are most attractive to other organisations.

It also happens that the rest of The Board see someone being too frugal with things and upsetting the whole name and image of the business.

[packapoo]

.....Board see someone being too frugal...

In normal words, a scapegoat....

[Turbine D]

Originally posted by Deepinsider:
Was his role instrumental in this product design/support disaster, or is he just unlucky with the restructure timing?

(either way, it will be very tricky writing his next CV
Noting infrequentflyer789 (https://www.pprune.org/members/214043-infrequentflyer789) comments, someone from CFM might well be needing CV advice too!)
I am not sure you are very familiar with design, testing, manufacturing and servicing of commercial turbofan engines in the aircraft engine industry today. First of all, Rolls Royce is in the process of restructuring their business organizations to eliminate duplications and eliminating businesses that don't contribute much to bottom line profitability with the goal of reducing costs to become more competitive in the marketplace. So are both GE and Pratt & Whitney. It is not unusual today in any business that wants to survive as a viable future business, even businesses that are not producing jet engines. Although there are technical issues on current engines in the field to be resolved, Rolls Royce has to stay cost competitive in the marketplace so don't confuse that business goal with a technical problem that will be resolved.

Secondly, you and infrequentflyer789 should understand that there have been over 30,000 CFM56 engines operating in the field since 1982. An aircraft with CFM56 engines takes off every three minutes 24-7, 365 days a year somewhere in the world, think about that for a moment. The idea that the CFM56 management structure should be overhauled, as suggested, because of two unfortunate technical incidents in 2018 is a bit of an overkill. Southwest Airlines had ultrasonically inspected 17,000 fan blades as a result of the first failure but before the second failure took place. No fan blades exhibiting fatigue cracks were found in any of the blades inspected. The CFM56 engines in the field have accumulated more than 30 million flight hours without any indication of the fan blade failures experienced in these two events. If anything, there may be improvements capable of being made to the engine inlet cowl to improve durability and absorb more of the energy when a fan blade is released, some potential improvements learned as result of these two incidents.

[Sailvi767]

These blades have been "self destructing" for 2 years now, to say they are failing earlier than expected is nonsense. People lives are being put at risk.

They should be saying "our design/engineering team got it badly wrong, all these engines should be taken out of service immediately until a proper and permanent fix can be installed, Rolls Royce will compensate everyone for our poor practices and "agile" development pushing these things out before they were ready and properly tested".

RR would be out of business if they did what you feel is needed. Companies like people rarely commit suicide.

[Dee Vee]

RR would be out of business if they did what you feel is needed. Companies like people rarely commit suicide.

If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business.

Too many businesses taking short cuts these days, the race to the bottom seems to put a low priority on safety as a result.
Agile methodologies are not conducive to a quality product, instead putting the focus on finishing within a timeframe that is usually cast by a beancounter.

[Turbine D]

Originally Posted by Dee Vee
If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business
In your jet engine experience, how much time do you estimate it takes, a year, two years, five years, ten years, twenty years or 50 years to make a turbo jet engine that never has a technical problem? I am really interesting in knowing your opinion as it will be indicative of your knowledge of the aircraft engine business...

[lomapaseo]

Dee Vee

If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business.

The operable word here is "If"

The authorities as well as others on this forum don't agree with you

time to move on unless/until new facts are in evidence

[GrahamO]

If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business..

How do you test an engine which is to be run 18 hours a day, over a period of four years, after which it is overhauled and parts replaced as a matter of course as part of the design ? And then do it for a population count of a few thousand engines to get all the performance flaws which only appear after tens of millions of miles ?

Put every engine on an aircraft wing and fly it around empty for fours years and then only put it on a passenger aircraft ?

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about in the context of aerospace and think you're buying something like a fridge.

[WHBM]

Given that nobody has sustained any injury, nor any airframe been breached, one cannot say the engines are not safe.

Which is more than can be said for another manufacturer's product.

[Mac the Knife]

"Rolls Royce operations head Simon Kirby to leave in summer after only 19 months in role."

I wonder how many squintillions his severance package will be!

What? Jealous? Moi?

Mac

[Dee Vee]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-sends-exec-to-help-rolls-royce-fix-787-engine-woes

Boeing has dispatched a prominent executive to help Rolls-Royce Holdings work through escalating engine problems that have grounded dozens of 787 Dreamliners.

Keith Leverkuhn is serving as Boeing’s eyes and ears at Rolls factories in Singapore and Derby, England, where the Trent 1000 engine (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/rolls-royce-spending-millions-of-dollars-to-repair-787-engines/) is manufactured and being repaired. Leverkuhn, an engineer with expertise in propulsion, is best known for steering Boeing’s 737 MAX through development (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-ramps-up-automation-innovation-as-it-readies-737max/) to its commercial debut a year ago, months ahead of schedule.

Leverkuhn’s special assignment to Rolls signals the importance Boeing is placing on containing the disruption to its marquee jetliner — and placating airline customers as the crucial summer travel season approaches. About 34 Dreamliners are parked and awaiting repaired engines, and the number is at risk of rising in the coming months, said people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the details are private.

[rog747]

damage limitation for the Boeing Brand - ?

[lomapaseo]

Not a big deal, it's done frequently when big money is at stake. It tends to answer questions faster

[glad rag]

Boeing has dispatched a prominent executive to help..

LMFAO!

[cessnapete]

Not a big deal, it's done frequently when big money is at stake. It tends to answer questions faster


It probably is a big deal for an Airline when nearly half its 787 fleet are unavailable, engineless, or being worked on, scheduled maintenance, or just swapping engines at any one time. Add to that the massive cost of temporarily retraining idle pilots on to their previous type. And leasing a number of those types to cover your schedules.
Presumably being billed to RR?
Is there actually a definitive technical fix in the pipeline??

[crewmeal]

There's an Air Austral 787 parked outide the Monarch Engineering at BHX hangar enginless. Both I believe have been transferred to Derby. It's been there for weeks.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Saw G-VBOW of Virgin without donks at LHR this week, plus looked like three others at the hangar, are there really four parked up without engines?

[DaveReidUK]

Saw G-VBOW of Virgin without donks at LHR this week, plus looked like three others at the hangar, are there really four parked up without engines?

G-VWHO B789 not flown since 07/10/2017
G-VBOW B789 not flown since 19/04/2018
G-VFAN B789 not flown since 30/04/2018

[Giant Bird]

I read that ETOPS on the RR powered 787 has been reduced to 60 minutes. I was surprised when I flew from SCL to MEL 10 days ago that it was a RR powered 787. I spoke to the pilot as to how come they were operating a route which required ETOPS 280 with the RR engines. He said that it was ok as the operation hours on these engines were lower that any of the engines which had to be shutdown by ANA or ANZ. LATAM were pulling the aircraft out of service when the operating hours got closer to the historical shut-down hours. This made me very nervous. My view is that defective engine design is defective, unreliable is unreliable, to operate these engines at ETOPS 330 in my view is against ETOPS principles even if it is within the regulations. There are so many factors that you cannot predict exactly as to after how many hours the defect will cause a failure. Just like in QF32 where RR gambled that their known oil pump defect would not fail early and lost the bet. Because the QF A380's were being used differently to the SQ and other A380's and therefore the engine failed earlier. They cannot be 100% sure that there will not be some previously unknown factor that will be different on the LATAM 787's which will mean they will fail earlier than the ANA and ANZ. I do not want to be 280 minutes from the nearest airport when one engine has to be shutdown and the other has the same design defect. Lucky it was a daytime flight and I told my wife that we needed to make sure one of us was always awake and if anything unusual seemed to be happening to wake me immediately if I was asleep.

[rog747]

I read that ETOPS on the RR powered 787 has been reduced to 60 minutes. I was surprised when I flew from SCL to MEL 10 days ago that it was a RR powered 787. I spoke to the pilot as to how come they were operating a route which required ETOPS 280 with the RR engines. He said that it was ok as the operation hours on these engines were lower that any of the engines which had to be shutdown by ANA or ANZ. LATAM were pulling the aircraft out of service when the operating hours got closer to the historical shut-down hours. This made me very nervous. My view is that defective engine design is defective, unreliable is unreliable, to operate these engines at ETOPS 330 in my view is against ETOPS principles even if it is within the regulations. There are so many factors that you cannot predict exactly as to after how many hours the defect will cause a failure. Just like in QF32 where RR gambled that their known oil pump defect would not fail early and lost the bet. Because the QF A380's were being used differently to the SQ and other A380's and therefore the engine failed earlier. They cannot be 100% sure that there will not be some previously unknown factor that will be different on the LATAM 787's which will mean they will fail earlier than the ANA and ANZ. I do not want to be 280 minutes from the nearest airport when one engine has to be shutdown and the other has the same design defect. Lucky it was a daytime flight and I told my wife that we needed to make sure one of us was always awake and if anything unusual seemed to be happening to wake me immediately if I was asleep.


correct ETOPS has been reduced to 60 mins but only on certain marks of the RR Trent 1000 engines and date of manufacture (so not all RR 787's affected)

[etudiant]

correct ETOPS has been reduced to 60 mins but only on certain marks of the RR Trent 1000 engines and date of manufacture (so not all RR 787's affected)


Giant Bird is correct thinking this is abusing the spirit of ETOPS rules. The risk may be small, but the practice carries the potential for a massive corporate disaster.

[lomapaseo]

Giant Bird is correct thinking this is abusing the spirit of ETOPS rules. The risk may be small, but the practice carries the potential for a massive corporate disaster.

There is no Gods of spirit when it comes to flight safety. It is fundamentally based on statistics from historical data..

Even when assuming there is an outlier earlier engine failure than expected, when you estimate a second engine going you are well within the average non-RR fleet probability of completing that sngle flight

[etudiant]

There is no Gods of spirit when it comes to flight safety. It is fundamentally based on statistics from historical data..

Even when assuming there is an outlier earlier engine failure than expected, when you estimate a second engine going you are well within the average non-RR fleet probability of completing that sngle flight

Except that the data indicates that the reliability is rather different in reality from that forecast, so something is not adequately understood. Continuing full ETOPS operations seems complacent under these circumstances.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Some of the airlines taking delivery of RR powered 787-8 have the Trent Ten installed and all 787-9 only use the Ten, this engine has no restrictions on ETOPS or anything else in relation to the engine.
It is only the package "C" engines which have the restrictions on them.

[Speedbrakes Up]

Trent Ten has no restrictions for now....

[Jumpjim]

Some of the airlines taking delivery of RR powered 787-8 have the Trent Ten installed and all 787-9 only use the Ten, this engine has no restrictions on ETOPS or anything else in relation to the engine.
It is only the package "C" engines which have the restrictions on them.

Our -9s have all got package C engines apart from the very latest ones...

[tdracer]

Boeing has dispatched a prominent executive to help..

LMFAO!

Glad, I know you're being somewhat sarcastic (at least I hope so), but aside from knowing Keith Leverkuhn personally (and having a great deal of respect for his abilities), this is SOP - my biggest surprise is it's taken this long. Keith isn't on his own - he's leading a team (I also know at least one of the people on that team).
This may seem silly to have aircraft people oversee what the engine experts are doing, but you'd be amazed at what people who are too close to the issue can miss. ~30 years ago I was on a similar team sent to Rolls because of a problem with the RB211-524G/H Pump and Governor (PAG) that had caused several shutdowns soon after EIS on the 747-400 (coincidently Keith L was on that team as well, although as a worker bee like me, not the leader). We did a design review and some of the issues were along the line of 'what were you thinking'? One issue that I remember distinctly was they had a room where they did computer inspections of some of the components - the measurements in question being to 0.00001 inches. Not only was it not a 'clean room', the room was in fact filthy - to the point where they'd created a special computer routine to detect when the measurement was corrupted by dust/dirt :sad: . When we told them you need to be doing that inspection in a 'clean room' - they looked flabbergasted :ugh:.
At about the same time, we had issues on another engine type due to bad Electro Hydraulic Servo Valves (EHSV) in the fuel control. The problem was traced to built-in contamination - turned out they'd assemble the EHSV in a 'clean room', took it to 'dirty' room to solder the electrical connections, then take it back to the 'clean room' and seal it :ugh: You could almost hear the heads hitting walls when the report came out...
In short, it never hurts to get a new set of eyes looking at a problem.

[lomapaseo]

At about the same time, we had issues on another engine type due to bad Electro Hydraulic Servo Valves (EHSV) in the fuel control.

Yea, just a minor problem when they stick full open on a start at the gate. They got the finest filters to catch the critical size bits of dirt, but they don't work so well when they are already built in.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Sorry what l meant to say was, "Some of the airlines taking delivery of RR powered 787-8 & 787-9 have the Trent Ten installed and all 787-10 only use the Ten."

[TURIN]

I read that ETOPS on the RR powered 787 has been reduced to 60 minutes. I was surprised when I flew from SCL to MEL 10 days ago that it was a RR powered 787. I spoke to the pilot as to how come they were operating a route which required ETOPS 280 with the RR engines. He said that it was ok as the operation hours on these engines were lower that any of the engines which had to be shutdown by ANA or ANZ. LATAM were pulling the aircraft out of service when the operating hours got closer to the historical shut-down hours. This made me very nervous. My view is that defective engine design is defective, unreliable is unreliable, to operate these engines at ETOPS 330 in my view is against ETOPS principles even if it is within the regulations. There are so many factors that you cannot predict exactly as to after how many hours the defect will cause a failure. Just like in QF32 where RR gambled that their known oil pump defect would not fail early and lost the bet. Because the QF A380's were being used differently to the SQ and other A380's and therefore the engine failed earlier. They cannot be 100% sure that there will not be some previously unknown factor that will be different on the LATAM 787's which will mean they will fail earlier than the ANA and ANZ. I do not want to be 280 minutes from the nearest airport when one engine has to be shutdown and the other has the same design defect. Lucky it was a daytime flight and I told my wife that we needed to make sure one of us was always awake and if anything unusual seemed to be happening to wake me immediately if I was asleep.

Are you nervous in all forms of travel or just where aviation is concerned? Do you make sure one of you stays awake when driving down the motorway, you know, just in case? What exactly did you think you were going to do if something 'unusual happened'?

The QF32 incident was not a pump fault.
From wiki
The investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Transport_Safety_Bureau) (ATSB) indicated that "fatigue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)) cracking" in a stub pipe within the engine resulted in oil leakage followed by an oil fire in the engine.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#cite_note-ATSB-31) The fire led to the release of the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) disc. It also said the issue is specific to the Trent 900.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#cite_note-32)

It wasn't a known design defect either, it was a manufacturering fault that was later discovered on several other engines worldwide after inspections. No gambling was involved. Quality control at RR however came under scrutiny, quite rightly.
Rolls-Royce determined that the direct cause of the oil fire and resulting engine failure was a misaligned counter bore within a stub oil pipe leading to a fatigue fracture.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#cite_note-33) The ATSB's preliminary investigation report confirmed Rolls-Royce's findings.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#cite_note-preliminary-16)

It was not a predicted failure, so the rest of your post needs to be addressed.
Predictable failures are handled by 'lifeing' the componant/engine/airframe. The lifeing element takes into account cycles as well as flying hours in addition to many other forms of condition monitoring and inspection. A factor of safety is added and worse case scenario taken into account. Thats how all aircraft are operated, You could apply your logic to every critical componant on the aircraft. But you don't.

Many componants fail in service before predicted. Trends are looked at and new life rules applied often with interim inspections. This RR case is no different jus a hell of a lot more expensive.

GE had flame out issues on their GEnX engine in the early years, its now a very reliable and popular engine. RR are not unique but people do like to kick a horse when its down don't they?

[Turbine D]

Thanks, Turin, in responding to the Giant Bird post. I was going to respond but hadn't the time to look up the ATSB accident report. Some people seem to think jet engines are as simple as lawnmower engines, they aren't. There are thousands of components which make up a jet engine, manufactured by hundreds of companies worldwide. The safety record for aircraft and their jet engines are really quite remarkable, resulting from quality control practices, certification requirements and design safety redundancy for certain components.

[DType]

Turbine D
How right you are! But do you remember that at the introduction of the jet engine its major benefit was seen as SIMPLICITY, because it got rid of all those ridiculous reciprocating pistons, valves, con rods, etc? Ah, progress!

[rjtjrt]

...............
The QF32 incident .........
It wasn't a known design defect either, it was a manufacturering fault that was later discovered on several other engines worldwide after inspections. No gambling was involved. Quality control at RR however came under scrutiny, quite rightly.
.................


Re “No gambling was involved”.
I seem to recal RR knew about the problem and had a fix that that they had implemented in some engines, but rather than issue those fixed engines to operating aircraft they issued them to new build aircraft at first, thus it could be construed that they incorrectly decided an urgent fix to operational aircraft was not needed (arguably, a type of gamble).

[b1lanc]

According to RR they are attempting to accelerate the fix process and "A revised compressor blade has been installed in a test engine." They hope to bump replacements from 2019 to 2018.

RR reportedly also stated " has been able to accelerate the development of the new blade through a combination of the latest computing capability, ‘fast make’ competencies within our supply chain..." I'm not familiar with 'fast make' comptencies - can anyone explain the concept?

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/press-releases/2018/30-05-2018-rr-trent-1000-operational-response.aspx

In another press release, RR indicated that disruptions will get worse before they get better.

[Dee Vee]

RR reportedly also stated " has been able to accelerate the development of the new blade through a combination of the latest computing capability, ‘fast make’ competencies within our supply chain..." I'm not familiar with 'fast make' comptencies - can anyone explain the concept?

Sounds like a euphemism for "agile", which is what got them into trouble in the first place.

Maybe they will get "lucky" this time.

[cessnapete]

BA to Wet Lease initially 3 Qatar A330 to cover increased 787 engine inspections.

[BluSdUp]

Hangar,no has an article quoting Norwegian saying they have 2 Dreamliners grounded indefinitely, one in OSL and one in CPH.
RR says there is 35 world wide and this could soon hit 50.
Expect a solution by fall.
It is officially The NightmareLiner.

[fleigle]

BluSdUp
"It is officially The NightmareLiner."
Try and think of something catchy to blame RR, not Boeing.
f

[lansen]

BluSdUp
"It is officially The NightmareLiner."
Try and think of something catchy to blame RR, not Boeing.
f

Nobody from the FAA gave a flying f*** when GE/PW engines went up in flames. The AD first came when it hit a RR.
America First :-D

[lomapaseo]

lansen

in spite of your rhetoric and lack of detail

it makes a difference in what the unsafe condition is and what authority develops the AD.corrective action.

Who gets hurt the most is divvied up between the engine manufacturer and the installer on the airplane. The FAA is not out to pick sides but only out to accept proposed corrective actions to protect the airplane and its passengers.

[Dee Vee]

oh dear, Rolls-Royce says Trent 1000 problem now found in B engines

more engines (https://www.reuters.com/article/rolls-royce-hldg-trent1000/rolls-royce-says-trent-1000-problem-now-found-in-b-engines-idUSFWN1TC01D)