There are crews on-site changing the engine today.

As per Bloomberg:

"U.K. engine maker’s initial analysis of Iberia A350 in-flight turbine shutdown was due to an issue with the engine’s control system; this is now being addressed, Rolls-Royce says in emailed statement.

- Inspections showed no damage to engine core, confirms no connection between incident on Iberia flight and Trent 1000 problems on 787 aircraft
- Rolls-Royce says it’s supporting plane’s return to service"

Hence, much ado about nothing.

WholaLottaLove wrote:

As per Bloomberg:

"U.K. engine maker’s initial analysis of Iberia A350 in-flight turbine shutdown was due to an issue with the engine’s control system; this is now being addressed, Rolls-Royce says in emailed statement.

- Inspections showed no damage to engine core, confirms no connection between incident on Iberia flight and Trent 1000 problems on 787 aircraft
- Rolls-Royce says it’s supporting plane’s return to service"

Hence, much ado about nothing.

Actually, still an issue. The engine control system is so vague it could be:
Actuator
Linkage
Valve
Software
Bad/damaged harness
FADAQ hardware failure

I listed from least to most concerning.
I like specific answers as they show a root cause finding. This reply is too vague.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

WholaLottaLove wrote:

As per Bloomberg:

"U.K. engine maker’s initial analysis of Iberia A350 in-flight turbine shutdown was due to an issue with the engine’s control system; this is now being addressed, Rolls-Royce says in emailed statement.

- Inspections showed no damage to engine core, confirms no connection between incident on Iberia flight and Trent 1000 problems on 787 aircraft
- Rolls-Royce says it’s supporting plane’s return to service"

Hence, much ado about nothing.

Actually, still an issue. The engine control system is so vague it could be:
Actuator
Linkage
Valve
Software
Bad/damaged harness
FADAQ hardware failure

I listed from least to most concerning.
I like specific answers as they show a root cause finding. This reply is too vague.

Lightsaber

There's a big difference between initial analysis and root cause finding.

It does map on to what we read earlier:

Dalmd88 wrote:

As for the IB A350 in BOS. I heard it was a auto rollback shutdown. The Trent family has lots of built in protections. If the engine sees certain faults it will auto shutdown to prevent damage. A vibe problem is one possible example. Delta shipped up the engine change kit this week in the event of an engine change. As of Friday I had not heard any updated info.

Especially the part above about an undamaged core.

It also jives with AvHerald's "Passengers reported the captain announced one of the engines had lost power and was shut down" intel.

Seems like some protection logic decided something was amiss and shut down the engine (or put it into some sort of low power mode).

The airplane is currently in the Delta hangar in BOS undergoing engine change.

AviationWeek has an update on the investigation.

"Although Rolls cautioned it is too early to know exactly what caused the inflight shutdown on the flight bound from New York to Madrid, the first for any Trent XWB in service on the A350, the engine maker is believed to be looking closely at engine control or quality issues among possible causes. The aircraft is one of the youngest A350-900s in service, having been delivered at the end of July.

Aviation Week understands examination of the engine involved in the incident revealed the presence of slight secondary damage related to the turbofan’s variable stator vanes."

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/rolls-reaffirms-a350-diversion-unrelated-trent-1000-issues

lightsaber wrote:

WholaLottaLove wrote:

As per Bloomberg:

"U.K. engine maker’s initial analysis of Iberia A350 in-flight turbine shutdown was due to an issue with the engine’s control system; this is now being addressed, Rolls-Royce says in emailed statement.

- Inspections showed no damage to engine core, confirms no connection between incident on Iberia flight and Trent 1000 problems on 787 aircraft
- Rolls-Royce says it’s supporting plane’s return to service"

Hence, much ado about nothing.

Actually, still an issue. The engine control system is so vague it could be:
Actuator
Linkage
Valve
Software
Bad/damaged harness
FADAQ hardware failure

I listed from least to most concerning.
I like specific answers as they show a root cause finding. This reply is too vague.

Lightsaber

Actually, Rolls-Royce doesn't have to provide any information to you. It's theirs, Airbus and Iberia's business, not your's so they don't have to supply you with a root cause.analysis.

Peterwk146 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

WholaLottaLove wrote:

As per Bloomberg:
Lightsaber

Actually, Rolls-Royce doesn't have to provide any information to you. It's theirs, Airbus and Iberia's business, not your's so they don't have to supply you with a root cause.analysis.

That's true but when an answer is not provided then speculation sets in and it is usually worse than the reality.


Ruscoe

I speculate that this is not a minor problem, because if it was it would be fixed on the wing.
For those who may think the XWB is perfect, I suggest you look up the Airworthy Directives from EASA with regards to the A350

Ruscoe

Just a couple of AD's from EASA over the years relating to the XWB.
15/4/16 - ...Thrust Reverser Actuation system replacement...
30/5/17 - cracking on several intermediate pressure turbine stage 2 locking plates..
21/12/16 - .... a certain population of compressor case support pins and hollow dowels have insufficient material properties......
15/5/17 - incorrect assembly of LP compressor disc to the compressor shaft...
6/9/18 - this is the canecellation date of an AD regarding an error in the EEC software.. potentially limiting thrust control ....

Overall I expected more AD's from a new engine.

Ruscoe

In this case the best is to replace the engine and get the "malfunction" one back to the shop to determine the cause of the situation. If it was an Auto Roll Back the control software must have logged the reason so now its time to investigate and correct the malfunction.

Ruscoe wrote:

Just a couple of AD's from EASA over the years relating to the XWB.
15/4/16 - ...Thrust Reverser Actuation system replacement...
30/5/17 - cracking on several intermediate pressure turbine stage 2 locking plates..
21/12/16 - .... a certain population of compressor case support pins and hollow dowels have insufficient material properties......
15/5/17 - incorrect assembly of LP compressor disc to the compressor shaft...
6/9/18 - this is the canecellation date of an AD regarding an error in the EEC software.. potentially limiting thrust control ....

Overall I expected more AD's from a new engine.

Ruscoe

Being such a new engine I would expect none of those to be applicable. The fixes would have been incorporated during build. The reverse actuator AD for example as far as I am aware there is not a single engine in service that applies to as they have been updated.

Ruscoe wrote:

I speculate that this is not a minor problem, because if it was it would be fixed on the wing.

#56 shared a published rumor of "slight secondary damage related to the turbofan’s variable stator vanes" so it sounds like a minor problem that needed to be fixed off wing.

Is there any schedule for that A350 to return to service?

a350lover wrote:

Is there any schedule for that A350 to return to service?

Dunno -- https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX suggests it's still at BOS.

zeke wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

Just a couple of AD's from EASA over the years relating to the XWB.
15/4/16 - ...Thrust Reverser Actuation system replacement...
30/5/17 - cracking on several intermediate pressure turbine stage 2 locking plates..
21/12/16 - .... a certain population of compressor case support pins and hollow dowels have insufficient material properties......
15/5/17 - incorrect assembly of LP compressor disc to the compressor shaft...
6/9/18 - this is the canecellation date of an AD regarding an error in the EEC software.. potentially limiting thrust control ....

Overall I expected more AD's from a new engine.

Ruscoe

Being such a new engine I would expect none of those to be applicable. The fixes would have been incorporated during build. The reverse actuator AD for example as far as I am aware there is not a single engine in service that applies to as they have been updated.

The TRU actuator is not an engine part so it has nothing to do with the XWB or RR for that matter. All the other issues are fixed.

It’s a certainty that the vast majority of airline passengers don’t give a diddly squat about RR’s share price. They are interested in getting from point A to point B safely and without worry or inconvenience. That being said, what is the specific technical root cause of this XWB shutdown? Some assert its one thing, others assert it’s another thing. Others say (and LOL over this assertion) it is nobody’s business what it was, just RR’s and Airbus’s business, taking the paying passengers right out of the equation.

It’s preposterous to think that there aren’t passengers technically savvy enough to avoid airlines and/or aircraft flying trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific routes with a knowledge from media reports, etc. of technical engine faults causing in flight diversions, without to-date root cause(s) identified and communicated regarding same, and not hearing what’s being done to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The lack of communication on the specific root cause of this diversion incident seems deafening.

cat3appr50 wrote:

It’s a certainty that the vast majority of airline passengers don’t give a diddly squat about RR’s share price. They are interested in getting from point A to point B safely and without worry or inconvenience. That being said, what is the specific technical root cause of this XWB shutdown? Some assert its one thing, others assert it’s another thing. Others say (and LOL over this assertion) it is nobody’s business what it was, just RR’s and Airbus’s business, taking the paying passengers right out of the equation.

It’s preposterous to think that there aren’t passengers technically savvy enough to avoid airlines and/or aircraft flying trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific routes with a knowledge from media reports, etc. of technical engine faults causing in flight diversions, without to-date root cause(s) identified and communicated regarding same, and not hearing what’s being done to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The lack of communication on the specific root cause of this diversion incident seems deafening.

Lack of communication?? Deafening?? Since when do inflight shutdowns warrant public statement about root cause etc within a few days? They have stated it’s a control issue, what more do you want. Did EA when they lost a fan and fancase, do we all have a detailed account of the uncontained failure of the Delta PW 2000 from the 5th Sept........I don’t think so.

Regardless of this being an engine (RR) issue continuing from the 787 engines or an auto roll back issue, both Airbus and RR are on the hook here. They both have to investigate and provide root cause analysis to the proper authorities (FAA/EASA). Some of these reports will become public record wether they like it or not, so it’s better for them to at least have their respective PR people realease some kind of statement on the issue. Auto roll back implies there is something going on with the airplane and it’s own software simply because the engine EEC has to interphase with the aircraft software and throttle controls. My guess is that the engine is being replaced due to the amount of time the engine was windmilling from the shutdown event to the time the airplane landed in BOS. Turbine engines don’t really like windmilling for prolonged periods of time at high speeds(relatively speaking). The internal bearings on that engine might be ground to dust. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

RB211trent wrote:

Lack of communication?? Deafening?? Since when do inflight shutdowns warrant public statement about root cause etc within a few days? They have stated it’s a control issue, what more do you want. Did EA when they lost a fan and fancase, do we all have a detailed account of the uncontained failure of the Delta PW 2000 from the 5th Sept........I don’t think so.

Nor did these airlines suffer from "passengers technically savvy enough to avoid airlines". Some people say the strangest stuff...

On the BOS Spotters FB Page there are photos of it in the DL hangar. They backed it in, and it just barely fits.

BOSAero wrote:

Regardless of this being an engine (RR) issue continuing from the 787 engines or an auto roll back issue, both Airbus and RR are on the hook here. They both have to investigate and provide root cause analysis to the proper authorities (FAA/EASA). Some of these reports will become public record wether they like it or not, so it’s better for them to at least have their respective PR people realease some kind of statement on the issue. Auto roll back implies there is something going on with the airplane and it’s own software simply because the engine EEC has to interphase with the aircraft software and throttle controls. My guess is that the engine is being replaced due to the amount of time the engine was windmilling from the shutdown event to the time the airplane landed in BOS. Turbine engines don’t really like windmilling for prolonged periods of time at high speeds(relatively speaking). The internal bearings on that engine might be ground to dust. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

So who are these people clamouring for a PR statement apart from you? There's an engine shut down - OK - no different to an engine shut down on any other aircraft.

chrisnh wrote:

On the BOS Spotters FB Page there are photos of it in the DL hangar. They backed it in, and it just barely fits.

¿What is that Facebook page?

pabloeing wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

On the BOS Spotters FB Page there are photos of it in the DL hangar. They backed it in, and it just barely fits.

¿What is that Facebook page?

It’s the New England Aviation and Spotting Page.

Peterwk146 wrote:

BOSAero wrote:

Regardless of this being an engine (RR) issue continuing from the 787 engines or an auto roll back issue, both Airbus and RR are on the hook here. They both have to investigate and provide root cause analysis to the proper authorities (FAA/EASA). Some of these reports will become public record wether they like it or not, so it’s better for them to at least have their respective PR people realease some kind of statement on the issue. Auto roll back implies there is something going on with the airplane and it’s own software simply because the engine EEC has to interphase with the aircraft software and throttle controls. My guess is that the engine is being replaced due to the amount of time the engine was windmilling from the shutdown event to the time the airplane landed in BOS. Turbine engines don’t really like windmilling for prolonged periods of time at high speeds(relatively speaking). The internal bearings on that engine might be ground to dust. Anyone care to elaborate more on this?

So who are these people clamouring for a PR statement apart from you? There's an engine shut down - OK - no different to an engine shut down on any other aircraft.

The media for one. Here in the U.S., when the media gets a hold of a hot issue (RR Trent 1000 issue) they become relentlessly obsessed with it and start hounding all parties involved for a story. The general public with even a slight interest in the issue is soon to follow just because this is America and people here tend to not mind their own business. As is, here at Logan International Airport, when airport employees heard of the diversion, several of us (me included) went looking for the airplane to go get some inside scoop from the mechanics working the jet. Not to sound obnoxious but this is the way things are here in the USA. It's just another way of getting some transparency from government and big corporations.

So, given https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX and ETOPS flight rules, why was BOS deemed "nearest adequate airport" rather than YHZ or elsewhere?

It would have sucked if the 2nd engine had an "auto roll back issue" over the Gulf of Maine.

Revelation wrote:

So, given https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX and ETOPS flight rules, why was BOS deemed "nearest adequate airport" rather than YHZ or elsewhere?

It would have sucked if the 2nd engine had an "auto roll back issue" over the Gulf of Maine.

I hadn't seen anything to say that the first engine shut down was due to an "auto roll back issue". Have I missed that or is it speculation?

Peterwk146 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So, given https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX and ETOPS flight rules, why was BOS deemed "nearest adequate airport" rather than YHZ or elsewhere?

It would have sucked if the 2nd engine had an "auto roll back issue" over the Gulf of Maine.

I hadn't seen anything to say that the first engine shut down was due to an "auto roll back issue". Have I missed that or is it speculation?

I don't think we have an official statement. I think #56 is the closest we have to one. I think we can label auto roll back as unconfirmed speculation/rumor. We do know one engine was shut down. AvHerald suggests the crew initiated the engine shutdown. Either way the FlightAware track suggests YHZ was along the flight track. Maybe there was bad weather there, I don't know.

Revelation wrote:

So, given https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX and ETOPS flight rules, why was BOS deemed "nearest adequate airport" rather than YHZ or elsewhere?

It would have sucked if the 2nd engine had an "auto roll back issue" over the Gulf of Maine.

It’s nearest suitable, not nearest adequate.

What is deemed suitable is up to the crew on the day.

And we do not even know for sure if it was shutdown or running at idle. Unless people here have more information....

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So, given https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ECMYX and ETOPS flight rules, why was BOS deemed "nearest adequate airport" rather than YHZ or elsewhere?

It would have sucked if the 2nd engine had an "auto roll back issue" over the Gulf of Maine.

It’s nearest suitable, not nearest adequate.

What is deemed suitable is up to the crew on the day.

Still would be interested in why YHZ would not be deemed suitable.

AvHerald suggests they were 70nm southeast from YHX when engine was shut down. FlightAware trace looks further than that. It also said they were flying for 90 minutes from engine shutdown till landing. Maybe they knew they needed that much time to dump fuel and so BOS was more suitable than YHX. Maybe weather.

zeke wrote:

And we do not even know for sure if it was shutdown or running at idle. Unless people here have more information....

Yes, facts are uncertain. AvHerald suggests the pilots shut down the engine. A poster here (who I believe works at DL's engine shop) suggests it was an auto rollback. Boston Globe says the pilots told the pax that the engine had lost power so they shut it down. Take your pick.

Hello
The Iberia 359 is scheduled to fly ferry from Boston to Madrid today , arriving in Madrid late at night local time and it is scheduled to flight MAD-JFK on Iberia's 2nd daily flight to New York . It seems like it is ready to fly again.
Best of luck to the airplane.

Del. Double.

Revelation wrote:

Still would be interested in why YHZ would not be deemed suitable.

Plenty of reasons possible. Weather, weights, runway distance available, MX crews, availability of transfer services for passengers and crew, and probably many more. I'd say more and more crews nowadays take the bird further to get into better position considering costs. Nothing unusual, I remember lots of hype on Polish press when LOT Polsih took 787 to JFK rather than MIA (around 3hrs diversion) to provide people with services from JFK and have MX available on standard basis. Yes, it was RR Trent failure.

Cheers,
Adam

I may have to stop following this thread as whilst I am interested to find out the cause of the engine issue the desperation that is evident in some posts for this to be a major problem linked to the Trent/787 issue is really making me annoyed now,

Revelation wrote:

Still would be interested in why YHZ would not be deemed suitable.

AvHerald suggests they were 70nm southeast from YHX when engine was shut down. FlightAware trace looks further than that. It also said they were flying for 90 minutes from engine shutdown till landing. Maybe they knew they needed that much time to dump fuel and so BOS was more suitable than YHX. Maybe weather.

The grown-ups that fly these aircraft are trained to know even an engine failure is not that big of a deal.

We do not rush the process of working out what is wrong, how to fix it, and then decide is a diversion is necessary.

A normal engine out driftdown takes the best part of an hour to go from cruise altitude down to one engine out altitude.

An airport 70 nm seems nice to you, but it really is too close. Normal top of descent would be 120 mn away, and then you would have 40 mn to set the approach up and brief it.

Add the additional items of engine out and overweight, there is no rush.

Thank you for the clarity Zeke.
The removal of the engine I would think has been decided so a full investigation can be carried out to try to find the true root cause.

Not necessarily, engines are removed as a preventive measure all the time. We would probably change an engine every two months.

Also very common to swap engines between aircraft, so the time in service on each side is different.

Where an engine has an issue that is not readily identifiable, would the aircraft's other working engine/s be inspected as thoroughly as the affected one before releasing it back into service?

zeke wrote:

The grown-ups that fly these aircraft are trained to know even an engine failure is not that big of a deal.

We do not rush the process of working out what is wrong, how to fix it, and then decide is a diversion is necessary.

A normal engine out driftdown takes the best part of an hour to go from cruise altitude down to one engine out altitude.

An airport 70 nm seems nice to you, but it really is too close. Normal top of descent would be 120 mn away, and then you would have 40 mn to set the approach up and brief it.

Add the additional items of engine out and overweight, there is no rush.

Thanks for the helpful information, along with the childish insult, the usual cost of doing business.

She flew out yesterday as far as I know

gatibosgru wrote:

She flew out yesterday as far as I know

Yes, FlightAware shows that she is back in service now (link above).