Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

When things like this happen in bunches, it's a bit scary. USUALLY it means nothing at all. But every so often there's a Constellation-type of serious problem, where a sudden flurry of problems really is a super-big killer-problem. Catastrophic failure of one engine is a bitxh but not necessarily a biggie. Then they find a bunch of possible, who-knows-what problems with other kinds of that engine, so it gets a lot of publicity.

 

Probably it's coincidence and no big thing. Possibly it's not. But either case, it's going to get front page for a while. Nothing personal. If a 787 has another emergency landing this week, it will push Rolls Royce off the front page.

 

The problem with your analysis is the extremely small number of new RR engines in service with the A380. Large proportion of these are experiencing one problem or another. Catastrophic failure is a big bitch and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two more engines experience the same.

[BigDUSA 71]

Boeing obviously think it is a serious problem if they have halted all test flights.

 

Smart move on Boeing's part and let's remember the 787 is still in the 'test' phase where problems are expected unlike the A380 that's in commercial service where a catastrophic engine failure is unacceptable. The passengers were very lucky that there were no injuries or deaths on board.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The problem with your analysis is the extremely small number of new RR engines in service with the A380. Large proportion of these are experiencing one problem or another. Catastrophic failure is a big bitch and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two more engines experience the same.

 

That would put them in line with GE.

 

Jet engine failures overseas prompt 'urgent' NTSB recommendation here

 

May 27, 2010|By Mike M. Ahlers, CNN

 

The failure of General Electric engines on four jet aircraft overseas during the past two years has prompted the National Transportation Safety Board to issue an "urgent" recommendation to increase inspections of the engines on U.S. aircraft.

 

None of the incidents resulted in crashes, injuries or fatalities. But in all four cases, engine parts penetrated the engine housing.

 

Such "uncontained engine failures" are particularly dangerous because flying engine parts could puncture fuel or hydraulic lines, damage flight surfaces or even penetrate the fuselage and injure passengers.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Smart move on Boeing's part and let's remember the 787 is still in the 'test' phase where problems are expected unlike the A380 that's in commercial service where a catastrophic engine failure is unacceptable. .

 

The 747 isn't in the test phase.

 

"A QANTAS plane carrying 212 passengers made an emergency landing yesterday after an engine exploded shortly after it took off from San Francisco.

The same jet has previously been investigated for a faulty engine, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Herald Sun reports.

The four-engine Boeing 747, which departed from San Francisco International Airport for Sydney at about 11.10pm local time on Monday (4pm Tuesday AEST), was in the air for 45 minutes and at 30,000ft when there was an explosion in the No. 4 engine".

 

Just like the other aircraft that suffered uncontained engine failure of their GE engines.

 

The passengers were very lucky that there were no injuries or deaths on board.

 

As were the pax on the 747.

 

The bottom line is that uncontained engine failures aren't uncommon, nor are they unique to RR engines and/or A380s.

Edited November 11, 2010 by CheshireTom

[joekicker 53]

The problem with your analysis is the extremely small number of new RR engines in service with the A380. Large proportion of these are experiencing one problem or another. Catastrophic failure is a big bitch and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two more engines experience the same.

 

The problem with your analysis is that Rolls Royce engines don't care about your surprise.

 

I don't think that "a large proportion" or a large number of engines are experiencing any problem at all. But because one did, there is a terrific focus on all of them. I'd be shocked, not just surprised, if this didn't happen. It's 2010 everywhere. No one can afford the bad PR that comes when Rolls Royce or Boeing or whoever says, "Hey, it's an anomaly, don't worry."

 

Remember all those Toyota cars that were taken off the road because one dodo in California couldn't tell the difference between the accelerator and brake? It's what companies have to do.

 

Almost all these things ARE an anomaly -- but not all of them. The company that doesn't play it safe is sorry.

 

.

[BigDUSA 71]

The problem with your analysis is that Rolls Royce engines don't care about your surprise.

 

I don't think that "a large proportion" or a large number of engines are experiencing any problem at all. But because one did, there is a terrific focus on all of them. I'd be shocked, not just surprised, if this didn't happen. It's 2010 everywhere. No one can afford the bad PR that comes when Rolls Royce or Boeing or whoever says, "Hey, it's an anomaly, don't worry."

 

Remember all those Toyota cars that were taken off the road because one dodo in California couldn't tell the difference between the accelerator and brake? It's what companies have to do.

 

Almost all these things ARE an anomaly -- but not all of them. The company that doesn't play it safe is sorry

 

Like I said your analysis is flawed. It doesn't matter if RR could care less about my analysis. The passengers and news media care. The regulatory agencies care and lets not forget the lawyer's they care.

[Samsonite 181]

The 747 isn't in the test phase.

 

"A QANTAS plane carrying 212 passengers made an emergency landing yesterday after an engine exploded shortly after it took off from San Francisco.

The same jet has previously been investigated for a faulty engine, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Herald Sun reports.

The four-engine Boeing 747, which departed from San Francisco International Airport for Sydney at about 11.10pm local time on Monday (4pm Tuesday AEST), was in the air for 45 minutes and at 30,000ft when there was an explosion in the No. 4 engine".

 

Just like the other aircraft that suffered uncontained engine failure of their GE engines......

 

And the engine on the QANTAS 747-400 mentioned above was made by... Rolls Royce.

 

Given the number of flights per day and hours per flight, etc., etc., etc., un-contained engine failures are quite rare and the consequences can be severe. The number of un-contained engine failures involving Rolls Royce engines in such short a short period

of time is beyond coincidental and is legitimate cause for concern.

[BigDUSA 71]

And the engine on the QANTAS 747-400 mentioned above was made by... Rolls Royce.

 

Given the number of flights per day and hours per flight, etc., etc., etc., un-contained engine failures are quite rare and the consequences can be severe. The number of un-contained engine failures involving Rolls Royce engines in such short a short period

of time is beyond coincidental and is legitimate cause for concern.

 

I guess tommie 'forgot' to mention the engine was made by Rolls Royce.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I guess tommie 'forgot' to mention the engine was made by Rolls Royce.

 

I didn't forget anything - I was replying to your comparison of aircraft types, not engine types. Remember ...

 

Smart move on Boeing's part and let's remember the 787 is still in the 'test' phase where problems are expected unlike the A380 that's in commercial service where a catastrophic engine failure is unacceptable.

 

If you want to compare the engine failures of RR v GE v PW, no problem on my part.

Edited November 11, 2010 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

I didn't forget anything - I was replying to your comparison of aircraft types, not engine types. Remember ...

 

Smart move on Boeing's part and let's remember the 787 is still in the 'test' phase where problems are expected unlike the A380 that's in commercial service where a catastrophic engine failure is unacceptable.

 

If you want to compare the engine failures of RR v GE v PW, no problem on my part.

 

Like I said and you can quote me. You forgot to mention it's a Rolls Royce engine that failed. Sad and lame.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

And the engine on the QANTAS 747-400 mentioned above was made by... Rolls Royce.

 

Totally different engine types.

 

Given the number of flights per day and hours per flight, etc., etc., etc., un-contained engine failures are quite rare and the consequences can be severe.

 

For any engine manufacturer.

 

The number of un-contained engine failures involving Rolls Royce engines in such short a short period of time is beyond coincidental

 

You don't know whether it's coincidental, or not.

 

and is legitimate cause for concern.

 

I'm sure the regulatory bodies will be doing their jobs as we type.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Like I said and you can quote me. You forgot to mention it's a Rolls Royce engine that failed. Sad and lame.

 

LOL. No, it simply means you can't quote me.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your "GE is kicking Euro butt" thread.

[BigDUSA 71]

SYDNEY – Europe's air safety regulator said Thursday an oil fire may have caused an engine turbine failure on a Qantas superjumbo, and issued an emergency order requiring airlines to re-examine that type of Rolls-Royce engine and ground any planes with suspicious leaks.

 

The order by the European Aviation Safety Authority backed earlier indications from investigators that they suspect a turbine disc was the cause of last week's engine failure on the Airbus A380, but was the first official mention of an oil fire preceding the engine's disintegration.

 

The A380 engine failure shortly after takeoff from Singapore on Nov. 4 has raised concerns over the safety of the world's biggest passenger airplane three years after its debut. The failure sent shrapnel slicing through the plane's wing and hurtling down over an Indonesian island before pilots made a safe emergency landing with 466 passengers and crew aboard.

 

Qantas said this week it found small oil leaks on Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines on three of its other Airbus A380s during tests after the Nov. 4 incident. The airline, Australia's national carrier, said Thursday it was keeping its six A380s grounded until further checks were completed — extending an earlier deadline.

 

Singapore Airlines on Wednesday grounded three of its 11 A380s after checks prompted by the Qantas incident revealed what the company called oil stains in the Trent 900 engines. Lufthansa also uses the A380-Trent 900 combination, but said on Wednesday its checks had not turned up anything untoward.

 

The European regulator said in a new "emergency airworthiness directive" posted on its website Thursday that airlines using Trent 900 engines should conduct "repetitive inspections" of them.

 

Twenty planes operated by Qantas, Germany's Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines use the Trent 900 engines. Nine have been grounded — six Qantas and three Singapore Airlines.

 

EASA said airlines should check several parts of the engines, including the oil service tubes, to ensure there is no "abnormal" leakage. If any such leaks are found, the airlines are prohibited from using the engines.

 

The directive was issued in response to the Qantas engine failure. EASA said an analysis of the investigation into the incident so far "shows that an oil fire" in part of the engine "may have caused the failure" of the engine's intermediate pressure turbine disc.

 

"This condition, if not detected, could ultimately result in uncontained engine failure potentially leading to damage to the aeroplane and hazards to persons or property on the ground," the directive said.

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is taking the lead in the investigation, has focused on a mangled section of a shattered turbine disc that was recovered from the stricken plane. It has been sent to Britain for testing, with investigators coordinating with Rolls-Royce, the bureau says.

 

Airworthiness directives are issued by the European agency to advise airlines about extra inspections or repairs needed to deal with potential problems on planes, and are relatively common occurrences covering many different types of planes and engines.

 

However, those classified as emergency directives are unusual, said Jason Middleton, an aviation professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

 

William Voss, head of the Flight Safety Foundation based in Alexandria, Virginia, said the EASA directive indicated the investigation into the Qantas incident had narrowed, and EASA was highlighting the oil service tubes as the likely source of the leak so airlines could more easily inspect for the problem.

 

"It appears the investigation has shown that oil contamination and burning in the very hot section of the engine where the energy is extracted from the fuel is a problem on that type of engine," he said. "I expect Rolls-Royce is working to fix this very quickly."

 

The latest directive was the third one issued this year on the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines.

 

In one of those directives, the European agency warned that unusual wear to parts of the engine could cause problems in the intermediate pressure turbine — the same part of the engine identified in Thursday's directive.

 

Too much wear could cause the turbine to move backward into a nonmoving part of the engine, the earlier directive said. That could eventually lead to an oil fire and an uncontained engine failure.

 

Middleton said the engine parts the agency has directed airlines to check all appear to be in the same area as the damaged disc.

 

The directive seems to confirm an oil fire erupted inside the engine, and suggests that the fire may have caused the disc to fail, Middleton said.

 

He cautioned it's simply too soon to tell if the issues are related. Still, he said, it is intriguing.

 

"The original (directive) does point at an area which looks to be one of interest right now," Middleton said. "There could be a connection there."

 

Qantas spokesman Tom Woodward said the airline's checks were already complying with the new EASA order, and there had been no new discoveries of any problems. Still, engineers were conducting further tests on the three engines where oil was found, and none of the A380 fleet would return to the air for the time being, he said.

 

"The objective is to get them back in service as soon as possible," Woodward said. "We don't want to attach a timeframe to that at this stage, because the situation is pretty fluid. The inspections are ongoing and it really depends on when our engineers are satisfied it is safe to bring them back into service."

 

Singapore Airlines said the new directive did not mean any disruptions to its services. The airline is replacing the engines on the three A380s that had oil stains and has deployed other types of jets to fill the gaps, spokesman Nicholas Ionides said.

 

"Singapore Airlines has been, and will be, in full compliance with the directive," Ionides said in an e-mailed statement. "Precautionary engine changes have been carried out for three engines, and we are inspecting our wider fleet in accordance with the directives set out by EASA and the recommendations from Rolls-Royce."

 

The Qantas and Singapore incidents are not the first problems Rolls-Royce has faced with its engines. In September 2009, a Singapore Airlines A380 was forced to return to Paris mid-flight after an engine malfunction. Last August, a Lufthansa crew shut down one of its engines as a precaution before landing in Frankfurt after receiving confusing information on a cockpit indicator.

QUOTE

 

The hits just keep on comming for Rolls Royce.

 

_

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The hits just keep on comming for Rolls Royce.

 

Why do you now have a hard-on for Rolls Royce, or BSA for that matter? Is it simply a medium to express your xenophobia, or what?

 

I'll give Scally his due, at least he actually knows something about the companies and industries involved, but for you it just seems to be a smokescreen to cover your xenophobic musings.

Edited November 11, 2010 by CheshireTom

[joekicker 53]

Like I said your analysis is flawed. It doesn't matter if RR could care less about my analysis. The passengers and news media care. The regulatory agencies care and lets not forget the lawyer's they care.

 

You've simply changed your story. Before, it was the additional RR engines that you expected were going to fail. Now, it's the PR and legal teams. Now it's the passengers and news media. That is EXACTLY what *I* wrote in the post you said was so flawed.

 

All you're doing now is totally, completely agreeing with what I wrote in the first place, and completely abandoning your vague and rather weird argument about how you wouldn't be surprised if more RR engines suffer catastrophic failure -- an argument that has everything to do with you and nothing at all to do with engines, public relations, public's perception, Rolls Royce response, airplanes, etc.

 

What I said: It doesn't matter what you (or I) are surprised about. So we agree it's all about PR and media interest. Great.

 

.

[BigDUSA 71]

You've simply changed your story. Before, it was the additional RR engines that you expected were going to fail. Now, it's the PR and legal teams. Now it's the passengers and news media. That is EXACTLY what *I* wrote in the post you said was so flawed.

 

All you're doing now is totally, completely agreeing with what I wrote in the first place, and completely abandoning your vague and rather weird argument about how you wouldn't be surprised if more RR engines suffer catastrophic failure -- an argument that has everything to do with you and nothing at all to do with engines, public relations, public's perception, Rolls Royce response, airplanes, etc.

 

What I said: It doesn't matter what you (or I) are surprised about. So we agree it's all about PR and media interest. Great.

 

Once again you continue with your flawed analysis. So be it. BTW you forgot to add passenger interest in not being injured or killed by a Rolls Royce engine blowing apart.

[BigDUSA 71]

Why do you now have a hard-on for Rolls Royce, or BSA for that matter? Is it simply a medium to express your xenophobia, or what?

 

I'll give Scally his due, at least he actually knows something about the companies and industries involved, but for you it just seems to be a smokescreen to cover your xenophobic musings.

 

It's sad that Rolls Royce has so many engine problems with so few engines built for the A380.

[TheFiend 1,181]

The problem with your analysis is the extremely small number of new RR engines in service with the A380. Large proportion of these are experiencing one problem or another. Catastrophic failure is a big bitch and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two more engines experience the same.

 

Sow how big do you call a large percentage? Oils leaks have been found on 7 engines....... 7 engines from a total of 20 RR engined A380s in service is hardly a large percentage!!!

 

If the airlines are only finding oil leaks now.... then surely it show their maintenance regimes need looking at. Oil leaks should have been picked up long before now.

 

And it's not as though P&W, or GE engines have never had an oil leak or a catastrophic failure, is it?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Sow how big do you call a large percentage? Oils leaks have been found on 7 engines....... 7 engines from a total of 20 RR engined A380s in service is hardly a large percentage!!!

 

If the airlines are only finding oil leaks now.... then surely it show their maintenance regimes need looking at. Oil leaks should have been picked up long before now.

 

And it's not as though P&W, or GE engines have never had an oil leak or a catastrophic failure, is it?

 

It's nothing to do with engines for him - they're only an excuse for him to vent his xenophobia. He couldn't care less about GE or P+W engines. He does care about who makes them though.

 

Going by his past record though and the BigD "Kiss of Death" ... his musings could spell disaster for the GE/P+W Engine Alliance. As for his "expectations" ...

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2010 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

Sow how big do you call a large percentage? Oils leaks have been found on 7 engines....... 7 engines from a total of 20 RR engined A380s in service is hardly a large percentage!!!

 

If the airlines are only finding oil leaks now.... then surely it show their maintenance regimes need looking at. Oil leaks should have been picked up long before now.

 

And it's not as though P&W, or GE engines have never had an oil leak or a catastrophic failure, is it?

 

Only seven out of twenty engines are having 'problems'. Yeah your soo right seven out of twenty is hardly a large percentage

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Only seven out of twenty engines are having 'problems'. Yeah your soo right seven out of twenty is hardly a large percentage

 

Your (sic) going to have to work on your maths and/or reading comprehension.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Only seven out of twenty engines are having 'problems'. Yeah your soo right seven out of twenty is hardly a large percentage

 

Thought you were clued up on all things about planes... the A380 uses 4 engines!!!

 

That's more like 7 out of 80..... hardly the large percentage you are claiming....... and that doesn't include engines that will have been swapped during maintenance.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Your (sic) going to have to work on your maths and/or reading comprehension.

 

You're right Tommy....... he seems to struggle to understand certain things....... you would have thought somebody who claims to have been to Cambridge would be able to comprehend English better than Denny does.

[BigDUSA 71]

BERLIN (Reuters) – Aircraft manufacturer Airbus (EAD.PA) has not had any orders canceled since engine problems arose with the A380 jumbo jet last week, the company's Chief Executive Tom Enders said on Wednesday.

 

Speaking in Berlin, Enders said he was confident that the builder of the jet's engines, Rolls Royce (RR.L), would ensure there would be no repeat of the problems. There is no reason to doubt the safety of the aeroplane, he added.

 

"We haven't had any orders called off, there isn't any kind of discussion about cancellations going on," Enders said after meeting German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle. "There is no reason to doubt the safety of the aircraft."

 

Nevertheless, Enders described the problems as a "serious incident," adding that Airbus wanted to help airlines "as far as possible with engines that we have at our disposal."

 

Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI) said on Wednesday it would replace engines on three of its A380 planes after finding oil stains on them, nearly a week after Australia's Qantas (QAN.AX) grounded its A380 fleet over an engine failure.

 

Qantas's six A380s have been grounded since Thursday, when a Rolls-Royce (RR.L) engine partly disintegrated mid-flight, forcing the fully laden A380 to make an emergency landing in the biggest incident to date for the world's largest passenger jet.

 

Probes into that incident have focused on oil leaks inside the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines, the same model used to power Singapore Airlines' and German Lufthansa's (LHAG.DE) A380 fleet. Lufthansa said on Wednesday its A380 flights were on schedule.

 

Enders said Rolls-Royce was working hard to investigate what exactly had happened.

 

"I have every confidence in Rolls-Royce that they will quickly be able to analyze what happened and take measures relating to the production of these engines which will prevent such incidents occurring any more," Enders said.

 

(Writing by Brian Rohan and Dave Graham; editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

QUOTE

[MrMango 670]

That's more like 7 out of 80..... hardly the large percentage you are claiming....... and that doesn't include engines that will have been swapped during maintenance.

You guys are crazy!

 

Only a small percentage of the original Comets crashed. According to you - No big deal -

 

I do not have a clue what the expected lifetimes of those engines are - My guess is probably 3-5 thousand hours before replacement.

 

If you have one out of a thousand, that's unacceptable to me - 7 out of 20 (or 80) after such a short time is a major problem.