Air NZ 787 RR engine issues
 

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
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/...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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Yikes.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/trave...ged-787-engine


https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...2680460416.jpg`
https://static3.stuff.co.nz/rsz-np4d...a-249706b6.jpg


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

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

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?

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...

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.

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

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:

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?

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.

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...

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:

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.

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.

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?