Norwegian 787 blows a donk in FCO

[BluSdUp]

The more I read about RR the more I love my CFM 56s.
If it starts , it runs.
If it runs it dont melt!

Something to be said for a FrenchAmerican project!

[golfyankeesierra]

Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem

It would be interesting to see pictures of the Norwegian FCO incident engine and how it compares to the ANZ one. Both sprayed parts out the back.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/12/0...ed-787-engine#

Answer to your question: looks a little different to me. Norwegian’s look a bit bent while ANZ look serrated.
But I am no expert so look for yourself on the updated Avherald page

[ManaAdaSystem]

Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra

Answer to your question: looks a little different to me. Norwegian’s look a bit bent while ANZ look serrated.
But I am no expert so look for yourself on the updated Avherald page

Of the two, the ANZ one looks more like a possible FOD damage, yet it was not.
I think an internal mechanical problem with the Norwegian engine is very likely.

[vs69]

I believe RR were only granted access to the engine yesterday but initial word I am getting is intermediate turbine blade failure through sulphidation. Be an interesting boroscope to say the least!

[atakacs]

Not a metallurgist by any means but I thought that sulfidation was actually a desired process?

[vs69]

Good insight here
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products...tes-hub.aspx#/

I'm no metallurgist either I just try to keep em turning and burning...

[atakacs]

Thanks for the link. I had no idea that the issues were so severe. It really sounds like RR have stretched the limits too far.

It would be really interesting to know if that donk was an upgraded one...

[ManaAdaSystem]

Originally Posted by atakacs

Thanks for the link. I had no idea that the issues were so severe. It really sounds like RR have stretched the limits too far.

It would be really interesting to know if that donk was an upgraded one...

Indeed, and if this failure is in the same area as the not upgraded ones.
If there is a tick mark in both those boxes, should this aircraft be flying?

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem

Indeed, and if this failure is in the same area as the not upgraded ones.
If there is a tick mark in both those boxes, should this aircraft be flying?

I suspect if this was a upgraded engine and the failure mode is the same you will see the same hour restrictions imposed on the upgraded engines as the non upgraded version. This will have a enormous impact on 787 operators using RR engines.

[lomapaseo]

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

I suspect if this was a upgraded engine and the failure mode is the same you will see the same hour restrictions imposed on the upgraded engines as the non upgraded version. This will have a enormous impact on 787 operators using RR engines.

Premature conclusion. Even if it was the same failure mode, one needs to establish if the upgrade improved the reliability or expected time-between-failures and thus made it unlikely that a dual engine failure were to occur in the lifetime of the B787 RR fleet.

Nobody should expect perfections (no failures) but of course the corrective action were expected to significantly lower the risk of no duals

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by lomapaseo

Premature conclusion. Even if it was the same failure mode, one needs to establish if the upgrade improved the reliability or expected time-between-failures and thus made it unlikely that a dual engine failure were to occur in the lifetime of the B787 RR fleet.

Nobody should expect perfections (no failures) but of course the corrective action were expected to significantly lower the risk of no duals

Post 737max debacle I don’t think it’s premature. I could actually see a reduction in hours for both versions if the failure is the same. Time on the failed engine will of course be a consideration.

[atakacs]

Well let's put it that way: this one could have staggering implications for RR, Boeing and operators.

[tdracer]

A sense of perspective is sorely lacking in most of these comments. Metal out the tailpipe is obviously not good, but it happens - more often than you might think (you usually don't hear about it because the bits don't land on anybody) - it's still considered to be a relatively benign shutdown (uncontained high energy metal coming out the side is a different story).
There are roughly 400 Trent powered 787s currently in commercial operation - that pencils out to somewhere around a quarter million Trent 1000 operating hours per month. If they're averaging one or two shutdowns/month, that's still a pretty respectable shutdown rate (certainly good enough for 180 ETOPS). If it's more like 4 or 5/month - then it's a serious problem on an ETOPS aircraft. I no longer have access to the Trent shutdown rate information - but I seriously doubt anyone else here does either. What I do know is that the regulators and operators have all that information and are keep close track to determine what, if any, further steps are required to insure fleet safety.
There is a tendency on this form to treat every engine failure as the end of the world (especially the unusual ones). It's not - engines fail. It's an inescapable fact just like death and taxes. It's the rate and severity of the failures that you need to pay attention to.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Originally Posted by tdracer

A sense of perspective is sorely lacking in most of these comments. Metal out the tailpipe is obviously not good, but it happens - more often than you might think (you usually don't hear about it because the bits don't land on anybody) - it's still considered to be a relatively benign shutdown (uncontained high energy metal coming out the side is a different story).
There are roughly 400 Trent powered 787s currently in commercial operation - that pencils out to somewhere around a quarter million Trent 1000 operating hours per month. If they're averaging one or two shutdowns/month, that's still a pretty respectable shutdown rate (certainly good enough for 180 ETOPS). If it's more like 4 or 5/month - then it's a serious problem on an ETOPS aircraft. I no longer have access to the Trent shutdown rate information - but I seriously doubt anyone else here does either. What I do know is that the regulators and operators have all that information and are keep close track to determine what, if any, further steps are required to insure fleet safety.
There is a tendency on this form to treat every engine failure as the end of the world (especially the unusual ones). It's not - engines fail. It's an inescapable fact just like death and taxes. It's the rate and severity of the failures that you need to pay attention to.

Or the possibility of two of them having benign shutdown at the same time.
If a program that puts all 787 aircraft on the ground in order to modify away an engine problem, and that problem continues, that is a cause for concern.
Time will tell.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem

Or the possibility of two of them having benign shutdown at the same time.

Mana, that's tracked by the shutdown rate. There has always been the possibility that two engines on a twin could shutdown at the same time (or more precisely, on the same flight). For ETOPS, the focus has been to eliminate 'common cause' shutdowns (e.g. maintenance errors or fuel contamination), and manage the rate of independent 'random' shutdowns. There are ETOPS regulations that govern the allowable shutdown rate relative to the max ETOPS time make the probability of a dual engine shutdown acceptably small.
You're focused on one shutdown - with a large fleet of aircraft and engines, one shutdown is not that meaningful - it's the overall rates that you should be paying attention two.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Mana, that's tracked by the shutdown rate. There has always been the possibility that two engines on a twin could shutdown at the same time (or more precisely, on the same flight). For ETOPS, the focus has been to eliminate 'common cause' shutdowns (e.g. maintenance errors or fuel contamination), and manage the rate of independent 'random' shutdowns. There are ETOPS regulations that govern the allowable shutdown rate relative to the max ETOPS time make the probability of a dual engine shutdown acceptably small.
You're focused on one shutdown - with a large fleet of aircraft and engines, one shutdown is not that meaningful - it's the overall rates that you should be paying attention two.

I see your point, and no, one engine failure is nornally not an issue. Unless there is another one.
And it happens in a part of the engine where it’s not supposed to happen because it has been modified.
The first Max crash was not a cause for concern either.

[BluSdUp]

Lets not compare RR and Max!

ManAdaSystem
There were a few of us that are able to see the big picture that was plenty concerned with the Max after the first accident.
But lack of info and fact made us relax a bit.

Lets compare the Max with the Rudder Hardover in the 737 and now You have something similar, but still not the same.

Tdracer
In hear what You say, but i for one will not book a 787RR trip any time soon.
Not had much luck lately!
And I generally do not like statistics and certainly not when I am up front, hence very happy with my old 737-800 cfm, Thank you very much.

Now
Lets reverse the statistics : 400 frames with less then perfect engines, You have to agree!
250 000 hrs per month,
The next one out of London bound for LA,,,,,,!
Two scenarios from and old sim Instructor: RH engine is going to fail completely and the remaining is gone after say 3 minutes.
1 After V1 , we dont want that, no con fields!
2 Over Greenland stepping up from say FL 340 to FL 360! bad for ca 290 people!
( Adding 3rd option: RH blows before V1 , RTO all good, and we find LH had issues)

We can go into details until the Cow come home, but I am good at the Big Picture, and we are forewarned!
Nothing against B or RR. and You could call me an uninformed scaremonger, and I can live with that.
The problem is to a certain degree that we as Pilots and DH Pax are told to trust the Manufacturers and NCAAs, and the timing of that is unfortunately not good for RR and B, on this specific Frame/Engine combination.

As opposed to the Max there is a perfectly safe option on the 787RR namely the other Engine manufacturer, Eh?!
Anyway
Heading south for a week on duty, lets hope we are more informed on both the 787RR and the Max and that it all ends good.
Wish You all a safe week.
Regards
Cpt B

[back to Boeing]

Having had long conversations with those in the know. It’s not as simple as “the other engine was a better option”. GE had many many similar problems as RR but GE was better tooled up for spares and engine overhauls.

Yes Rolls bears most of the responsibility however a lot of it was driven by Boeing. They insisted on a cut off date where no further modifications to the design could be made (read in to that testing) They had a deadline that was driven by timelines of worldwide production. If Rolls had had more time to test the engine (rather than the design being completely finalised on day x) then the issue will have become more apparent sooner (and before so many engines were in commercial use).

Lets not forget that the 787 has had many teething problems. The RR engine issue is by far and away completely the worst, but remember the batteries catching fire? Yes Rolls made mistakes (serious mistakes that they also made in the spey engine) such as not coating the entire blade including the fir tree. But some of those errors were driven by a very demanding customer.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Mana, that's tracked by the shutdown rate. There has always been the possibility that two engines on a twin could shutdown at the same time (or more precisely, on the same flight). For ETOPS, the focus has been to eliminate 'common cause' shutdowns (e.g. maintenance errors or fuel contamination), and manage the rate of independent 'random' shutdowns. There are ETOPS regulations that govern the allowable shutdown rate relative to the max ETOPS time make the probability of a dual engine shutdown acceptably small.
You're focused on one shutdown - with a large fleet of aircraft and engines, one shutdown is not that meaningful - it's the overall rates that you should be paying attention two.

All that notwithstanding, it would be very damaging if there were a related dual engine failure on an ETOPS flight. The record of problems not fully resolved would not play well in the current environment.

[Meester proach]

Originally Posted by etudiant

All that notwithstanding, it would be very damaging if there were a related dual engine failure on an ETOPS flight. The record of problems not fully resolved would not play well in the current environment.

Quote of the day....very damaging.....and rather silent I’d imagine .