WeeWinkyWilly

SUMMARY:
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by Rolls-Royce
plc (RR) Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 turbofan engines. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual to limit extended operations (ETOPS). This AD was prompted by a report from the engine manufacturer indicating that after an engine failure, prolonged operation at high thrust settings on the remaining engine during an ETOPS diversion may result in failure of the remaining engine before the diversion can be safely completed.

2018-NM-060-AD; Amendment 39-19256; AD 2018-08-03]
DATES: This AD is effective April 17, 2018.

Una Due Tfc

I assume affected airlines can send RR the extra fuel bill? This must be getting expensive...

172_driver

Are there other engine alternatives than Rolls Royce out there or does this affect every 787?

mach2.6

uh-oh
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...rolls-engines/

DaveReidUK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

tdracer

The thread title is 'fake news' - ETOPS isn't cancelled, it's changed from 330 minutes to 140 minutes. Cancelling ETOPS would mean 60 minutes.

As I explained on the similar thread in Rumors and News, 140 minutes is not that limiting except in certain areas of the Pacific. From the US Mainland to Hawaii requires ~180 minutes (zero alternates), so flights from the US to Hawaii and other areas of the South Pacific are no longer doable. Most other routes (e.g. between North America and Asia - which more or less follow the Pacific coast of North America and Asia) can still be done, but may not have optimal routing. Most routes between North America and Europe don't need more than 120 minute ETOPS.
Roughly a quarter of the 787 fleet is affected (half the Rolls fleet, obviously doesn't affect GE).

172_driver

Thanks..

People may ask out of convinience when they know someone sits on the information. Perhaps someone will add a juicy detail... (such as 1/4 of the fleet affected)

I lost a minute or two there, it was a long text.

KRviator

Air NZ must be thrilled. 10 of their 11 787's are affected, though they seem to think they can work around it juggling the rest of their fleet.

RubberDogPoop

Is that because they've already inspected 11 engines as part of the IPT blade issue?

Roj approved

Don’t worry, of a fleet of 11 GE engined 787’s, there has been 44 engines changed in 5 years.

Built to a cost anyone?

Dee Vee

Who is "adopting" this directive, and who has made it?

Does it only apply to US aircraft, or US operations?

jack11111

Quote: "We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000"

It's just a kinder, more gentle way of saying, "We are forcing" Boeing to do something.

PR speak from the regulator.

tdracer

Actually the AD doesn't apply to Boeing, it applies to the operators of the affected aircraft. The FAA isn't forcing Boeing to do anything, and Boeing can continue to deliver Rolls powered 787s (the latest build Trent 1000 engines aren't affected by the AD anyway).
Technically, an FAA issued AD only applies to US operators, but it's pretty much SOP that an AD issued by the FAA or EASA will be immediately adopted by all the other regulatory authorities.

jack11111

Quote: "Actually the AD doesn't apply to Boeing, it applies to the operators of the affected aircraft."

Yes, my error.

ElZilcho

140 EDTO is workable for Asia and the South Pacific, assuming most Enroute alternates are available.
The 777 can pickup the North/South American flights, including HNL, but will require a lot of juggling without sourcing a lease(s).

10 out of 11 787's have the old engines, so majority of the fleet. The big question will be, how many pass the inspection? I've heard the (worldwide) failure rate of these new inspections is rather high... 30% or so.

phantom menace

The worldwide regulators ( NAAs) have not been proactive enough and need to issue an AD to this ongoing issue. Afterall, regulators should have a regulatory SMS and therefore must assess operational risk.

ElZilcho

I believe there was an AD issued, but it came from EASA not the FAA. This reduced the inspection time from 2000 cycles down to 300 for the IPC blades.

phantom menace

Thanks for that. It would be interesting to know why other NAA's haven't seen fit to adopt a similar position.

lomapaseo

Of course the regulators use a risk based analysis when assessing combinations less likely than 1 in 10 million. The problem is when dealing in such small numbers you need as much data as possible so that any errors in your assumptions don't actually raise the event rate by a factor of 10-100.

Time to make a decision of affecting a large fleet impact $$$$ is both your friend and your enemy. Make it too quick and you destroy the industry and miss an important piece of data. Make it too late and you actually have an event that you could have prevented with an initial assumption.

tdracer

EASA is the responsible organization for certifying the engine - hence it's their responsibility to issue an engine related AD - which the 300 cycle inspection requirement is. The 140 minute ETOPS AD is issued by the FAA since they are the responsible for the airplane certification - part of which is ETOPS approval.
As I noted before, once the FAA or EASA issue and AD, it's SOP for all the other airworthiness authorities to adopt the AD as well.