Thread: Airline News

5 MAY 2018 • 12:02PM

British Airways and Virgin planes have been warned to stay within an hour of an airport over safety fears for their Rolls-Royce engines.
Passengers could face increased flight times after authorities ordered planes to be within an hour of airports following the discovery that some of the the £7.4m ($10m) Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner jet engines suffered from cracking and corrosion.
Concerns over potential wear and tear problems on the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, used to power some Boeing 787-9 planes, were first discovered two years gowhen the manufacture announced it was carrying out extra inspections.
The "package C" engine was first grounded by Japanese airline ANA in 2016 when it found engines had corroded turbine blades. An Air New Zealand 787 had to return to Auckland airport after the pilots noticed problems and shut down an engine.
While the inspections are carried out on the engines, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - the civil aviation watchdog in America - has ordered some 787 planes must fly within an hour of an airport in case of an emergency.
But BA said it did not expect to see disruption to flights as only a small number of their 787-9 planes that used this type of engine were actually affected by the order.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...t-amid-engine/

Many BA 787-9s are allowed to fly within three hours of the nearest airport and others can go more than two hours - 140 minutes - away from a runway.

The restrictions mean some transatlantic flights could face increased flying time of up to an hour - extending journey times to New York to eight hours.
Both British Airways and Virgin have 17 Dreamliners each, flying to New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, Kuala Lumpur and Beijing, while Air New Zealand and Air China, who grounded their 787s last week, both use the engines.
A spokesman for BA said: "The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority and we would never operate an aircraft if it was unsafe to do so.
"Like other airlines around the world, we are carrying out detailed precautionary inspections on Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines on some of our Boeing 787-9s to ensure we meet all the relevant regulatory requirements.
"Our Flight Planning teams have enormous experience in managing flight paths on our global network every day and always ensure we meet the relevant safety regulations."

Originally Posted by aging one

your racism is tiring.

Which "race" are you talking about. Surely not the mongrel mixed breeds living in North America. Original Indians tribes, English, French, Dutch, German, Polish, Indian, Spanish, Asians, Eatern European ,,,,,,,,, quite a mix of races. So racism, on my part, is unlikely IMHO.

Originally Posted by david44

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - the civil aviation watchdog in America - has ordered some 787 planes must fly within an hour of an airport in case of an emergency.

Illegal Sanctions by another route.

Different actions due to local manufacturer, yes?

Check out the lax/delayed response to ameristani manufacturers engine problems, grounding of ameristani planes after 6 months, one year of "inspection" notice after life threatening defects being found. RR shut out in a couple of months.

FAA Demands Inspection Of A380 Jumbo Jet Engines After Air France Emergency

"Another day, another problem for the Airbus A380. Today’s issue is directly related to that of Sept. 30, when an engine “came apart” on an Air France A380 flying from Paris to Los Angeles with 496 passengers and 24 crew aboard.

The engine explosion over Greenland led to an , including applause for the pilots. Engine components have been found in Greenland as well as on the arrival runway at Goose Bay.

The engine failure led directly to today’s news, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Directive (AD) calling for visual inspection of fan hubs used in the engines of SE A380 aircraft with Engine Alliance (EA) engines.

The FAA issued the AD because it determined the “unsafe condition…is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.”

The Engine Alliance is a 50/50 joint venture between General Electric and Pratt and Whitney, a division of United Technologies. (A380s powered by Rolls-Royce engines are not affected by the directive.)

Specifically, the FAA emergency airworthiness directive requires owners and operators of Engine Alliance (EA) Model GP7200 series engines to visually inspect the engines. The operators are tasked with removing the fan hub if defects are found and replacing it with an airworthy part. Otherwise, the directive notes, failure of the fan hub could lead to an “uncontained release” of the hub, which could result in damage to the engine and the airplane.

The emergency AD was prompted by the uncontained engine failure which occurred on an EA GP7270 turbofan engine with 3,527 cycles since new, a relatively high use engine. The FAA specified that engines with 3500 cycles since new need to be inspected within two weeks. Engines with less than 3500 cycles since new need to be inspected within 5 weeks.

The GP7200 engines are reportedly in some 60% of the Airbus A380 superjumbos currently in service. Airlines operating the affected aircraft include Air France, Emirates (which operates nearly half of the world supply of A380s) Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways and Korean Air Lines. The airlines have so far not commented on how the inspections might affect their service."

"Meanwhile, the FAA stated that it considers the AD “interim action” as “an investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going.”"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/10/13/faa-demands-inspection-of-a380-engines-after-air-france-emergency/#646aced62ddd

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...rbus-neo-jets/

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/14/ai...gine-problems/

It appears to be sensible to choose a 4 engined plane. As if one engine fails the increased power from the remaining engine "may" overstress it, causing failure of the second remaining engine.

Inspections are one thing, this is additional:

Originally Posted by david44

has ordered some 787 planes must fly within an hour of an airport in case of an emergency

which you convenently forget, as the problem with the airlines/RR having to await replacement engines/parts/servicing facilities availability.

Which was not required in previous FAA/EU similar notices.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

they are letting them fly on condition that they follow a simple rule

To clarify for our readers here, the "simple rule" requires airplanes, with these specified RR engines, to fly within a radius of 1 hours flying time to an approved airport. Historically flights over oceans utilised, for safety reasons, 4 engines. Now 2 engined commercial planes have been allowed.

The loss of one engine on a 4 engined plane has consequences, the loss of one engine on a 2 engined plane has consequences. One would have imagined these consequences would have been investigated prior to accepting 2 engined planes for these types of routes. Possibly more stringent "examinations", more stringent maintained cycles. These cost money and airlines would have calculated the lifetime costs prior to purchasing 2 or 4 engined planes.

The "simple rule" which, as you know very well, was not applied by the authorities in the previous ameristani aircraft / engine "problems". The "simple rule" is an ameristani corporate demand and enacted politically by biased institutions, the EU and FAA.

An action to bankrupt RR, soon to be an non EU company, and those airlines. the majority non EU or ameristani, who choose RR engines on their commercial passanger aircraft, as opposed to the demanded amerstani engines.

If, by chance, you can find any previous instances of this "simple rule", please do post them here.

Simply put, illegal, financial sanctions. Nothing more and nothing less.

Aircraft Makers Narrow Engine Options




By Robert Wall,
Jon Ostrower and
Rory Jones

July 15, 2014 4:46 p.m. ET 0 COMMENTS

FARNBOROUGH, England— Airbus Group NV and Boeing Co. BA 1.13% are working ever more closely with engine makers to deliver the more-efficient planes that airline customers crave.

That's good for carriers, who strive to save fuel. But there is a cost as well: With plane makers more wedded to specific engine models for their planes, there is less competition and bargaining power for carrier customers to exploit.

Exhibit A in the new calculus: Airbus this week launched a major upgrade of its popular A330 long-range jet. Its key selling point is the plane's new Trent 7000 engine from Rolls-Royce Holdings RYCEY 0.09% PLC of Britain. It is the main contributor to the plane's 14% fuel-efficiency improvement. Older models of the A330, which went into service two decades ago, have three engine options: one from Rolls-Royce, another from General Electric Co. GE 1.22% and a third from Pratt & Whitney, the engine arm of United Technologies Corp. UTX 1.54%

Airbus's A350, meanwhile, is only available with a Rolls-Royce engine. These days, "I would be very surprised to see an airframe with three" engine choices, said Paul Adams, the head of Pratt & Whitney.

The lack of choice for the A330neo, so called for its new engine option, is causing handwringing from some would-be buyers. Steven Udvar-Házy, chief executive of Air Lease Corp. , one of the world's biggest aircraft buyers, said he wanted an engine choice. The market is big enough for two engine options, he said, adding that he was disappointed GE wasn't involved.

It is also cheaper for plane makers. "You can add several hundred million dollars onto the development cost if you have a second engine option," Airbus's Mr. Williams said.

That is heightening worry among carriers. "We see this as a trend. Boeing is going toward exclusivity with GE, and Airbus is going the way to be exclusive Rolls-Royce," said Mr. Al Baker. "In the end, it is very bad. Both manufacturers should know that this will cause them to lose business."

Engine and plane makers say the alignment isn't a long-term strategic shift. "There is absolutely no strategic dimension to this," Mr. Williams said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/aircraft-makers-narrow-engine-options-1405457174

Mr. Williams would say that publicly, but behind closed doors, bug swept rooms?

Originally Posted by Troy

So far no problems have been found during the CFM56 inspections.

Southwest challenged engine maker over speed of safety checks

World News

April 19, 2018 / 1:36 PM / 16 days ago

"The FAA and CFM International made the inspection recommendations after a Southwest flight in August 2016 made a safe emergency landing in Florida after a fan blade separated from the same type of engine. Debris ripped a foot-long hole above the left wing. Investigators found signs of metal fatigue.
On Tuesday, a broken fan blade touched off an engine explosion on Southwest Airlines flight 1380, shattering a window of the Boeing 737 jet and killing a passenger. It was the first death in U.S. airline service since 2009.

The FAA is not bound by any specified time periods in deciding whether to order inspections and must assess the urgency of each situation.

Southwest and other airlines in their responses in October objected to a call by CFM to complete all inspections within 12 months. The FAA proposed up to 18 months, backed by Southwest and most carriers. Southwest also told the FAA that only certain fan blades should be inspected, not all 24 in each engine.

United CEO Oscar Munoz said inspections had begun recently and would occur throughout the course of the year.

A former NTSB chairman, Mark Rosenker, said in an interview that the board would look at why the FAA had not already mandated the inspections it proposed in August 2017.

“There did not seem to be an urgency” at the FAA to finalize the inspections, he said. The FAA declined comment.

Safety checks in Europe have also been contentious.

European regulators last month ordered checks within just nine months of April 2, following the 2016 incident at Southwest. Investigators warn that it is too early to say whether the two problems are linked.

The statements by some airlines that they are not required to track the history of each individual fan blade within an engine are significant because that makes it harder for investigators to be certain whether the engine that exploded on Tuesday was one of those already targeted for inspection. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKBN1HQ0PE

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rbofan-engines


Not a clue as to whether the engine that exploded had been inspected and passed as OK or not. Whether the individual blade inspected was in a similar engine position .......

But RR powered airlines, No ETOPS.

A very striking difference between EU produced engines and ameristani produced engines. Which may, IMHO, influence purchase decisions by airlines.

An ameristani, government directed, political decision to MAGA, to favour an ameristani engine/plane maker over a foreign competitor or just FAA indecision?

History suggests the former.