Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#61

Post by 13of40 »

rjsw wrote: post #17
ummonk wrote: post #6

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/08/12/norwegian... The plane in question was a 5.5-year-old Boeing 787-8 with the registration LN-LND. The parts are believed to have come from the left engine, a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, a model that has been plagued with problems. Link about the problems: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-problems-trent-100... Cracking problems in the intermediate pressure (IPT) s…

> I'm reminded of all the jokes Jeremy Clarkson makes at Rolls Royce's expense... Rolls-Royce Holdings only makes aero engines, the cars are made by BMW.

They also make "marine propulsion systems for commercial and naval customers" according to their web site.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#62

Post by a3n »

jacquesm wrote: post #44
dmitrygr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...

20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to…

> 20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km

Unless you have to turn around to face back to the airport. You've lost a lot of altitude in the turn in that case.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#63

Post by ShorsHammer »

alkonaut wrote: post #29

Is this the same issue that has plagued the Trent 1000 since the beginning or is it something different? It says the plane is 5.5 years but I guess that doesn’t say whether the engine had been modernized. On the bright side, Rolls seem to have sorted out most issues from the 1000 in their newer engine the XWB. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000

> Boeing dispatched 737 MAX head VP Keith Leverkuhn to help Rolls-Royce overcome the problems

Well that really inspires confidence.

The new engines are still suffering these same problems, very good chance Norwegian has the newer variant as the older ones are mostly grounded and I'm quite sure Boeing agreed to replace them all years ago.

https://simpleflying.com/singapore-airlines-787-10-engine-is...

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#64

Post by inferiorhuman »

jacquesm wrote: post #37
krona wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the aircraft itself seems otherwise undamaged, and people on the ground reported it 'rained' metal shards, I'd say these parts melted off the turbine and fell out. Significant but not catastrophic.

This ended well, fortunately. But that must have been pretty scary. A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. And they don't glide particularly well either, though there are s…

A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

That's why there are restrictions on which RR engines can be put in a 787 as well as a reduction in the ETOPS certification. There've been a few revisions to the Trent, and putting two of the more "unfixed" ones on one airframe is verboten.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#65

Post by inferiorhuman »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #12
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #8

This really doesn't make me feel very confident about getting on a 787 for a 14 hour flight next week.

If it has GEnx engines you have little to worry about. The easiest way to tell the difference is the GE has metal leading edges on the fan. The Trent fans are all cfrp.

If it has GEnx engines you have little to worry about.

GE has also had problems with the GEnx including a double engine failure on a 787.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#67

Post by hammock »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #64
jacquesm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ended well, fortunately. But that must have been pretty scary. A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. And they don't glide particularly well either, though there are s…

A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. That's why there are restrictions on which RR engines can be put in a 787 as well as a reduction in the ETOPS certification. There've…

That's a nice solution now that we know the engines need fixing. What about when they were first released? Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine?

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#68

Post by kijin »

hammock wrote: post #67
inferiorhuman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. That's why there are restrictions on which RR engines can be put in a 787 as well as a reduction in the ETOPS certification. There've…

That's a nice solution now that we know the engines need fixing. What about when they were first released? Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine?

That's what testing is for, although I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust Boeing and FAA with testing these days.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#69

Post by braythwayt »

serf wrote: post #30
rjsw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm reminded of all the jokes Jeremy Clarkson makes at Rolls Royce's expense... Rolls-Royce Holdings only makes aero engines, the cars are made by BMW.

>the cars are made by BMW. as of 1998. Most of Clarksons' jokes are in reference to the 70s and 80s era of Rolls Royce -- which is known among auto enthusiasts as one of the least reliable group of cars to have ever existed.

Driving a 1977 Rolls established your wealth without question. Not only could you afford a Rools, you could afford three:

One you’re driving.

One in the shop.

One in the garage in case the one you’re driving goes to the shop before the other one is repaired.

Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below

#70

Post by inferiorhuman »

hammock wrote: post #67
inferiorhuman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. That's why there are restrictions on which RR engines can be put in a 787 as well as a reduction in the ETOPS certification. There've…

That's a nice solution now that we know the engines need fixing. What about when they were first released? Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine?

What about when they were first released?

If memory serves Rolls placed the blame on the initial problems with the Trent 1000 on air quality in SE Asia (high sulfur content specifically). Which is to say, I don't get the impression that certification was done sloppily.

Are planes required to have one old-reliable engine?

Reliability is (theoretically) improved. From following threads on a.net and pprune it seems like Norwegian actually demanded new engines instead of repaired older ones.

Personally, I'm of the mindset that engines are fantastically safe these days. Piston engines were notoriously unreliable, and even older jet engines were deemed unreliable enough to require more than two for oversea crossings. Look back to when the L-1011 was introduced. It was late due to problems with the Rolls Royce RB-211 (predecessor to the Trent family). Even after the L-1011 began service in-flight shutdowns were pretty common. What we're seeing with the 787 is seemingly less frequent and has provoked a stronger reaction. Of course GE (CFM) isn't immune to problems either and if you look back over their history they've had a few nasty problems including that fairly recent Southwest flight with a passenger fatality.

Post reply on HN