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.

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

https://e24.no/naeringsliv/norwegian...orene/24227528

Which seems to imply it's not a straightforward switch.

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

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.

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.

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...

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

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defe...787-this-week/

https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/14/fa...-787s-sources/

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

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

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).

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 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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

According to Scoop NZ, 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.

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-op...for-the-787-9/

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!

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 ?

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

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

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

No need to ask RR

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:

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!!

actually, thanks for the info!

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)

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

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.

[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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.
.

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

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".

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.

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!)

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.