New RR T1000 issue - unexplained surges, mandatory de-pairing

JerseyFlyer · Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:17 am

Looks to be a new issue in higher cycle / hours examples, hence would not have been picked up in testing

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/unexp ... 65.article

calstanford · Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:35 am

We've been hearing about Trent 1000 issues for so long yet Trent XWB seems pretty okay so far (knock on wood). Do they really differ that much?

tomcat · Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:46 am

I thought that de-pairing engines was a standard practice for any engine. We learn something new everyday here.

One has to wonder if it's the same company who designed the Trent-1000 and the Trent-XWB.

RJMAZ · Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:54 am

I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

uta999 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:06 pm

Are these RR 787 issues related to ones assembled in the UK or abroad? Bring it back in-house perhaps if that is the problem.

psolk · Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

Seriously? This is a Rolls issue, period end of story. Nice implication though.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... on-modules

RickNRoll · Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:48 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

You have got to be joking. This problem is costing RR a lot of money they would rather keep as profit.

SteelChair · Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:50 pm

Staggering engines has been a common industry practice for over 50 years. A regulator demanding it is a bad sign, a sign that the operators aren't doing their due diligence imo.

As for the allegation that RR puts "bad"engines on Boeing planes, that is simply preposterous on several levels. RR is losing billions due to the 787 engine problem, and there is no way they would send airplanes into service, ETOPS no less, with known issues. That is perhaps the most ridiculous assertion I have ever read on these pages.

jeffrey0032j · Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

I would wait for another 2 years before declaring that. The Trent issue didn't come out earlier in the service life unlike the GENx, which in hindsight, is a blessing in disguise for GE.

zeke · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:20 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

hOMSaR · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:02 pm

The idea that one of the large engine manufacturers could be intentionally sabotaging engines is just...I don’t know. Asinine isn’t strong enough of a word, but the words I’m thinking of would get me banned from this site.

Some people need a serious reality check.

RJMAZ · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:07 pm

SteelChair wrote:
As for the allegation that RR puts "bad"engines on Boeing planes, that is simply preposterous on several levels.

As Wlederling suggested it would be a parts supplier to Rolls Royce. Rolls Royce would have no idea the engines are bad. They are clearly bad. They are clearly on Boeing aircraft. No one suggested Rolls Royce is sending bad engines to Boeing on purpose when it is costing them billions of dollars.

par13del · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:32 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
The idea that one of the large engine manufacturers could be intentionally sabotaging engines is just...I don’t know. Asinine isn’t strong enough of a word, but the words I’m thinking of would get me banned from this site.

Some people need a serious reality check.

So just one of those things, Zeke attempts to put it down to technology, bleed air versus more power, other say the technology behind the engine of the A350 is a generation ahead of that on the 787 even though they are a couple year apart.

In any event, cue the information that the GE engine also has problems on the 787 in 3...2...1

Dalmd88 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
P1aneMad wrote:
Are the alloys used on the Trent XWB so much different than on the T1000?
Are the coatings all that different?
Are the Trent 1000s run at higher temperatures?

Could be that RR saw early on the issues of the T1000 and decided to make the Trent XWB far different that it would led us to believe from its older brother?

The Trent 7000 is the same engine as the Trent 1000 just with bleed air added. Both are running at the same thrust and temperature levels. The Trent 7000 should have all the same problems as the Trent 1000. It does not have the same problems so that is highly suspicious.

The XWB is different and larger engine so there are many reasons why it could be performing flawlessly.

The Trent 7000 does have the same problems as the T1000. Shop visits have already started to fix IPC and HPT blade issues.

You don't think there is an issue for a few reasons. Age of the fleet, they have only bee in service for a year. Size of the fleet, not as many A330neo were delivered in that time span compared tho the 787 when the problem was realized. When the T1000 problem was found airlines were grounding planes left and right, big news. When Rolls identified the 7000 problems there was nothing to ground, the planes were being built knowing a early shop visit was coming. Same goes for the T1000-TEN which is actually a bleedless T7000.

448205 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:46 pm

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

And GE just got it right. It's an engine design with issues, nothing more. Reminds me of all the RB211 problems that used to exist.

WIederling · Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:09 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
P1aneMad wrote:
Are the alloys used on the Trent XWB so much different than on the T1000?
Are the coatings all that different?
Are the Trent 1000s run at higher temperatures?

Could be that RR saw early on the issues of the T1000 and decided to make the Trent XWB far different that it would led us to believe from its older brother?

The Trent 7000 is the same engine as the Trent 1000 just with bleed air added.

Wrong.
The Trent 7000 is the same engine as the Trent 1000 TEN just with bleed air added.

The Trent1000 TEN is a major revamp of the Trent 1000 line.
Actually I am waiting on numbers that allow comparing
A330-900 (Trent7000)
and 787-9 and/or -10 (Trent1000TEN)

closest ever to compare "real" airframe performance not tainted by different engine installations.

WIederling · Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:26 pm

par13del wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
The idea that one of the large engine manufacturers could be intentionally sabotaging engines is just...I don’t know. Asinine isn’t strong enough of a word, but the words I’m thinking of would get me banned from this site.

Some people need a serious reality check.

So just one of those things, Zeke attempts to put it down to technology, bleed air versus more power, other say the technology behind the engine of the A350 is a generation ahead of that on the 787 even though they are a couple year apart.

In any event, cue the information that the GE engine also has problems on the 787 in 3...2...1

The 787 project and engines were all rushed and over promised. OK?
4 years deadline. nobody knew that up front 7 years would have been available.
All those late open heart ops could have been replaced by small doses of premeditation up front.
( I'd like to peddle my projects bible here: "The Mythical Man Month" :-)

The A350XWB engines had much more time available.

par13del · Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:35 pm

WIederling wrote:
The 787 project and engines were all rushed and over promised. OK?
4 years deadline. nobody knew that up front 7 years would have been available.

The delays on the 787 helped both engine OEM's, none of the faulty fasteners were for the engines, the faulty batteries, FOD, poor out-sourced vendors going broke and or under performing, at the end of the day, they had the 7 years and the additional years were known in advance, as primaries on the a/c they knew when the delays were coming ahead of time.
Where the engine OEM's fell down was on meeting their spec, not on delivering engines that would work or stay on wing for short periods of time.

mjoelnir · Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:35 pm

The engines having reached 24,000 hours and/or 8,000 cycles should be T1000 not T1000ten as the T1000ten are younger.
The Trent XWB is a different engine than the T1000. The T1000ten is the T1000 beefed up with TXWB technology. The T7000 is a T1000ten with more bleed and less power extraction from the shafts.

As it is, the new problems should be limited to the T1000.

WIederling · Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:48 pm

par13del wrote:
WIederling wrote:
The 787 project and engines were all rushed and over promised. OK?
4 years deadline. nobody knew that up front 7 years would have been available.

The delays on the 787 helped both engine OEM's, .

That is patently wrong.
They had 4 years available to distribute development and industrialization work : "The 2004 to 2008 UberPlan"

They got 3 more years _afterwards_ , rather unexpectedly where they had a chance to partly
fix stuff that should have been handle at the very front of the project
but was rushed to meet that 4 years deadline.

Broken Record: read the "Mythical Man Month"

https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~yfcai/CS451/RequiredReadings/MythicalManMonth.pdf

SQ22 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:22 pm

May I kindly remind you to stay on topic, which is a new RR T1000 issue. Thanks.

ikolkyo · Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:24 pm

zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

Poor excuse as the GENx is doing just fine and had ample time to get it right with the 787 delays, they screwed the pooch with this engine. Plain and simple.

dstblj52 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:44 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
zeke wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I find it amazing that the Rolls Royce engines fitted to Airbus aircraft are pretty much immune to problems.

I don't believe Airbus just got lucky.

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

Poor excuse as the GENx is doing just fine and had ample time to get it right with the 787 delays, they screwed the pooch with this engine. Plain and simple.

The GENx also had issues at launch and has a had some continuing issues since then not as bad as rolls royce but they have not been completely problem-free like a lot of people like to believe

lowbank · Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:53 pm

calstanford wrote:
We've been hearing about Trent 1000 issues for so long yet Trent XWB seems pretty okay so far (knock on wood). Do they really differ that much?

Yes they do differ that much.
The T1000 is likened to a Farrari V12.

The XWB more like the a Chevy V8.

jeffrey0032j · Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:56 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
zeke wrote:

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

Poor excuse as the GENx is doing just fine and had ample time to get it right with the 787 delays, they screwed the pooch with this engine. Plain and simple.

The GENx also had issues at launch and has a had some continuing issues since then not as bad as rolls royce but they have not been completely problem-free like a lot of people like to believe

Even the Trent 700 and 900 has issues, and then we have the PW GTF...

ikolkyo · Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:10 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
zeke wrote:

As RR has explained a number of times, a number of the issues have arisen from choices the OEM made for power extraction from the engine. That required different ways of doing things.

It is normal to see in aviation when something new is used, that unknown unknowns become an issue, something the 787 has seen on many fronts because of design and production choices made.

Boeing went down the path of extracting the majority of power from the engine via the shaft, Airbus took the more traditional method of using a mix of shaft and bleed.

Poor excuse as the GENx is doing just fine and had ample time to get it right with the 787 delays, they screwed the pooch with this engine. Plain and simple.

The GENx also had issues at launch and has a had some continuing issues since then not as bad as rolls royce but they have not been completely problem-free like a lot of people like to believe

Never said it was problem free. We are now 10 years after the first flight of the 787 and RR still can’t get their act together with the T1000. It’s pathetic.

smartplane · Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:03 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The engines having reached 24,000 hours and/or 8,000 cycles should be T1000 not T1000ten as the T1000ten are younger.
The Trent XWB is a different engine than the T1000. The T1000ten is the T1000 beefed up with TXWB technology. The T7000 is a T1000ten with more bleed and less power extraction from the shafts.

As it is, the new problems should be limited to the T1000.

EASA hasn't included the T7000 at this stage.

Mandatory de-pairing is a hassle, but always considered prudent. Airlines with good inhouse MX de-pair when the opportunity presents. For example, an urgent GE90 AD covering 16 engines, likely both on 6-8 aircraft, unless previously de-paired.

Engine MX staff will be targets for F1 teams, as their speed of inspections and engine changes must be getting right up there.

zeke · Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:53 am

ikolkyo wrote:
We are now 10 years after the first flight of the 787 and RR still can’t get their act together with the T1000. It’s pathetic.

What are the facts ? Havant there been 4 Recent IFSDs on the GEnx vs 1 on the Trent 1000 ?

This is a new issue only impacting high cycle, high time Trent 1000 engines, ie engines that have a lot of time on wing. The exact opposite of what your saying the engine is doing.

ikolkyo · Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:29 am

zeke wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
We are now 10 years after the first flight of the 787 and RR still can’t get their act together with the T1000. It’s pathetic.

What are the facts ? Havant there been 4 Recent IFSDs on the GEnx vs 1 on the Trent 1000 ?

This is a new issue only impacting high cycle, high time Trent 1000 engines, ie engines that have a lot of time on wing. The exact opposite of what your saying the engine is doing.

You’re talking IFSDs? We still have aircraft that are grounded with no engines!

WIederling · Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:24 am

zeke wrote:
.....not for airlines that went cheap on support.

You think these late issues are MX related?

Can there be so much difference between different airlines?

.. thought all Trent1000 were PBH contracts with MX being RR's burden.

zeke · Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:21 am

WIederling wrote:
Can there be so much difference between different airlines?

Very much so, the financing of engines and their maintenance can vary a lot.

Some airlines have/had the view that new aircraft and engines don’t need maintenance, they terminated a lot of their internal mechanics and went cheap on support contracts.

WIederling · Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:27 am

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Can there be so much difference between different airlines?

Very much so, the financing of engines and their maintenance can vary a lot.

Some airlines have/had the view that new aircraft and engines don’t need maintenance, they terminated a lot of their internal mechanics and went cheap on support contracts.

El Cheapo is a carrier pidgeon. returns home to roost. :-)

That would explain the scenario. Can we prove it, though?
( and it is another of these cases where you have to be rather careful
about overly loud root cause attribution by partisan forces.)

zeke · Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:45 am

Suppose one could go back to when they were originally ordered, and see what the announcements said.

Revelation · Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:11 pm

zeke wrote:
This is a new issue only impacting high cycle, high time Trent 1000 engines, ie engines that have a lot of time on wing.

TFA says:

But the surge occurrences appear to be a separate issue. “Investigation into the cause [or causes] of these events is ongoing,” says the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.

EASA says the engine surges have particularly affected engines which have accumulated a high number of cycles and flight hours.

Interesting choice of words to use particularly rather than exclusively.

Do we know if the issue has exclusively been seen in high time high cycle engines?

Or is this another UK English vs US English thing?

Google defines particularly as "to a higher degree than is usual or average."

Or are they saying there is some level of surging that is acceptable and the high cycle high time engines exceed that level?

zeke · Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
[
Or is this another UK English vs US English thing??

You mean the difference between English and American ?

lowbank · Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:18 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
zeke wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
We are now 10 years after the first flight of the 787 and RR still can’t get their act together with the T1000. It’s pathetic.

What are the facts ? Havant there been 4 Recent IFSDs on the GEnx vs 1 on the Trent 1000 ?

This is a new issue only impacting high cycle, high time Trent 1000 engines, ie engines that have a lot of time on wing. The exact opposite of what your saying the engine is doing.

You’re talking IFSDs? We still have aircraft that are grounded with no engines!

When you say we, who do you mean???

AOG’s have reduced by 10 since the new year and will be in single figures within weeks.

lowbank · Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
zeke wrote:
This is a new issue only impacting high cycle, high time Trent 1000 engines, ie engines that have a lot of time on wing.

TFA says:

But the surge occurrences appear to be a separate issue. “Investigation into the cause [or causes] of these events is ongoing,” says the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.

EASA says the engine surges have particularly affected engines which have accumulated a high number of cycles and flight hours.

Interesting choice of words to use particularly rather than exclusively.

Do we know if the issue has exclusively been seen in high time high cycle engines?

Or is this another UK English vs US English thing?

Google defines particularly as "to a higher degree than is usual or average."

Or are they saying there is some level of surging that is acceptable and the high cycle high time engines exceed that level?

Engines can surge at any age for multiple reasons, all of which are way outside of my scope of knowledge.

I suggest but have no knowledge this is the case but older engines maybe showing a statistically higher percentage of occurrences.

Revelation · Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:30 pm

lowbank wrote:
AOG’s have reduced by 10 since the new year and will be in single figures within weeks.

That's good news! My relative who works at RR in Derby making turbine blades was already sick of the overtime even before the T1000 problems became evident. Maybe life can return to normal soon. Hopefully the airlines can enjoy a northern summer peak season with their entire fleet available.

Slug71 · Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:38 pm

It sounds like this is related t the T1000 and not the T1000TEN. If that is the case, then it's not surprising that high cycle engines of the T1000 are experiencing these issues.

WIederling · Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:28 pm

Slug71 wrote:
It sounds like this is related t the T1000 and not the T1000TEN. If that is the case, then it's not surprising that high cycle engines of the T1000 are experiencing these issues.

There should not be any high cycle T1000TEN around, should there ?
they started delivery with 7810 EIS, right?

Slug71 · Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:46 pm

WIederling wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
It sounds like this is related t the T1000 and not the T1000TEN. If that is the case, then it's not surprising that high cycle engines of the T1000 are experiencing these issues.

There should not be any high cycle T1000TEN around, should there ?
they started delivery with 7810 EIS, right?

Correct. I said high cycles of the T1000.

lightsaber · Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:00 pm

I missed the Trent Ten would be serviced every 4 years vs. promised 5.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-roll ... SKBN1XH1LB

2021 for new turbine blade design. So that relative working overtime, has at least 20+ more months.

Lightsaber

zeke · Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:39 pm

Slug71 wrote:
It sounds like this is related t the T1000 and not the T1000TEN. If that is the case, then it's not surprising that high cycle engines of the T1000 are experiencing these issues.

From the AD it applies to Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G and Trent 1000-H engines, all serial numbers.

If one engine has above 24000 HRS or 8000 EFC, it must be paired with an engine with less than 17000 HRS and 5500 EFC.

If one engine has both above 24000 HRS and 8000 EFC, it must be paired with an engine with less than 24000 HRS and 8000 EFC.

So if an engine has not reached 24000 HRS or 8000 EFC there is nothing to do immediately.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net