Air NZ 787 RR engine issues
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.
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
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR Trent-TEN
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.
It is only the package "C" engines which have the restrictions on them.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK, South East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is only the package "C" engines which have the restrictions on them.
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
. When we told them you need to be doing that inspection in a 'clean room' - they looked flabbergasted 
.
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 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.
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
. When we told them you need to be doing that inspection in a 'clean room' - they looked flabbergasted .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
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.
At about the same time, we had issues on another engine type due to bad Electro Hydraulic Servo Valves (EHSV) in the fuel control.
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.
The QF32 incident was not a pump fault.
From wiki
The investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) indicated that "fatigue cracking" in a stub pipe within the engine resulted in oil leakage followed by an oil fire in the engine.[30] 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]
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?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...............
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.
.................
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.
.................
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).
Last edited by rjtjrt; 2nd Jun 2018 at 03:30. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/ou...-response.aspx
In another press release, RR indicated that disruptions will get worse before they get better.
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/ou...-response.aspx
In another press release, RR indicated that disruptions will get worse before they get better.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Maybe they will get "lucky" this time.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35 aircraft grounded?
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.
RR says there is 35 world wide and this could soon hit 50.
Expect a solution by fall.
It is officially The NightmareLiner.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ZKPY
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
