So Rome has a science police?
Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
71–80 of 128 posts
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#72Small shards (in great numbers) that according to a witness on the ground were burning or very hot sounds a lot like (pieces of) blades from the turbine or stator/guide vanes. In both cases it's a very significant engine failure.
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.
I'm honestly curious how part of the turbine melting and falling off in flight can be other than catastrophic.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#73A British Airways 787 with the Trent 1000 engines had to make an emergency landing in Istanbul on June 15 while en route to London:
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Welcome back!
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#75So Rome has a science police?
Reminds me how excited I was when I found out there was a religion based around science.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#76Is 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...
>Well that really inspires confidence.
For better or worse it appears Boeing is practicing https://codeascraft.com/2012/05/22/blameless-postmortems/
It appears to work in software, so unless demonstrated otherwise I assume it's effective in other engineering disciplines. We can learn from the equivalents of the FAA in other countries where blame automatically gets assigned based on who is in charge, it leads to finger-pointing and worse safety records/poorer investigations: watch a few seasons of Mayday: Air Crash Investigations to see the pattern. You see it especially in more autocratic countries where hierarchy is rigid. One especially good example is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, there's a good chance we would've found the plane if everyone in the government wasn't practicing CYA which led to significant delays and made the search exponentially harder. Compare that to Air France Flight 447 where the right information was shared with the world immediately (and it still took us two years to find the black boxes).
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#77Earlier 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.
I'm honestly curious how part of the turbine melting and falling off in flight can be other than catastrophic.
-Not an aeronautical engineer, but I know that a lot of thought goes into ensuring that pretty much no matter what happens to the engine, debris flying from it is not going to damage the structural integrity of the wing or fuselage.
With redundant hydraulic/fuel/oil systems as well, much can happen to the engine without turning the airplane into a brick with passengers in it.
That being said, I am glad I am not on the Trent 1000 design team.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yep, the 60 km is straight line or nearly straight. As soon as you start to bank and turn you lose altitude faster than the ideal. So the 60 km is a maximum, not a guarantee.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#79And this is what a culture of management bonuses causes. I don’t want to ever fly Boeing again at this rate...
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They are much more reliable, but also much more costly to build and maintain. There was an argument that the A380 wasn't less fuel efficient simply because it had four engines. When you only have two engines they need to be much more reliable, have much higher peak output, and the costs of maintenance are greater. Whereas when you have four engines each engine is cheaper to build, can have more efficient power profiles, and are generally cheaper to maintain. All-in-all it's mostly a wash in terms of cost efficiency.
The argument goes that what killed the A380 wasn't having 4 engines, but having 4 old engines. All the newer planes have engines at least 1 if not 2 generations newer. Notably, the A380 wasn't cancelled until it became crystal clear that engine manufacturers weren't going to invest in redesigned engines. That's when the Emirates order fell through. While their year long dance with Airbus over pricing is what got the most press, it was the backroom negotiations with Rolls Royce that controlled whether the A380 remained cost effective.