Air NZ 787 RR engine issues
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 comments, someone from CFM might well be needing CV advice too!)
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 comments, someone from CFM might well be needing CV advice too!)
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.
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".
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".
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dee Vee
If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business
If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business
Last edited by Turbine D; 14th May 2018 at 00:50. Reason: grammer correction
Dee Vee
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
If they won't take the time to make/test safe aircraft engines, they shouldn't be in business.
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
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.
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.
Which is more than can be said for another manufacturer's product.
Plastic PPRuNer
"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
I wonder how many squintillions his severance package will be!
What? Jealous? Moi?
Mac
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing sends exec to help Rolls-Royce fix 787 engine woes
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...87-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 is manufactured and being repaired. Leverkuhn, an engineer with expertise in propulsion, is best known for steering Boeing’s 737 MAX through development 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.
Keith Leverkuhn is serving as Boeing’s eyes and ears at Rolls factories in Singapore and Derby, England, where the Trent 1000 engine is manufactured and being repaired. Leverkuhn, an engineer with expertise in propulsion, is best known for steering Boeing’s 737 MAX through development 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.
damage limitation for the Boeing Brand - ?
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??
G-VBOW B789 not flown since 19/04/2018
G-VFAN B789 not flown since 30/04/2018
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 77
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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)
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.