Talk:Rolls-Royce Trent 1000

Wiki.Answers, seriously??

RE price of RR Trent 1000 engines. Come on, you can't cite Wiki.Answers as a source! Those are just random idiots writing in answers; not credible. $40M? No way. 71.139.166.86 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted! I just removed this unlikely price tag (roughly 3× list price, and we have a better estimate down in the article, anyways). Good job, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dreamliner

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jetstar 787

A bit of an odd choice for an image as Jetstar has opted for the GEnx on their Dreamliners. 60.49.43.6 (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted! I have moved the image to GEnx, and fixed the image description in its Commons page. It should also be renamed shortly. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Southwest Engine Cracks

Adding a quick note here regarding the engine cracks on the Southwest engine failure. See link: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/business/engine-on-southwest-jet-not-the-only-one-to-develop-cracks.html Shaded0 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

already noted and more exhaustive "In April 2018, the inspection interval for 380 Package C Trent 1000s was reduced from every 200 flights to every 80 to address durability problems, as the EASA could reduce ETOPS from 330 to 140 minutes and should be followed by the US FAA, impacting trans-Pacific flights." Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

English?

This article requires heavy editing from someone who writes proper English. It’s almost impossible to read.

200.68.143.3 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Baden k.

Engine failure over Rome

This part is anecdotal. Turbine engine failures does happen. That's why airliners have at least 2 engines. No catastrophe resulted, no fatalities. See WP:AIRCRASH for more on inclusion criteria.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the multiple occasions in this section about various airlines and their Trent 1000 failures arent relevant because the plane didnt crash. Other widebody turbines have similar brief entries on these sorts of issues. WP:AIRCRASH doesnt cover the stand alone engine type articles, only airports, airlines , plane type. Okerefalls (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is only this one incident in the article, not others, giving an imbalanced WP:DUEWEIGHT. One failure leading to a controlled emergency landing is not so notable, one leading to a crash is. wp:aircrash does not apply for engines but the guideline is a good example of what should be kept. What could be of encyclopedic interest would be the failure rate.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUEWEIGHT policies seem to be for very minor political views and opinions or extreme scientific theories like Flat Earth. This is a technical issue, RR Trent 1000 engine problems have become part of the wider public discussion, as air travel related issues often do. The details are covered and referenced in the aviation technical press. Maybe later when a national aviation safety report is issued on the incident , that particular section could be shortened and more precise, but its in the correct article for this type of event. That seems to be how serious incidents of other turbofan engines are handled. Too often all the sections, because they are based on manufacturers data become puffery, so its good to cover reliability and accidents as well.Okerefalls (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. DUEWEIGHT is for balancing the article without over representing a single incident. If you want to cover engine failures, you can, but you have to be exhaustive and report _all_ engine failures! It had 4 IFSD by march 2016 and maybe 4 more sincen at an IFSD rate of 1 per 500k hours. If an appropriate weight should be given for each IFSD, you have to find all the other IFSD (be exhaustive), write a similar paragraph for each (due weight), and maintain the article by reporting every future incident.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." This seems to be the case RR Trent 1000 reliability issues are currently prevalent in reliable sources, other engine types are not. The idea that an article must be exhaustive is laudable but isnt the goal 'improvement' over time. Okerefalls (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this incident is more prevalent or not than others, and I don't see why it would be. In AvHerald, there are 13 other IFSDs. And you're perfectly right: we shouldn't seek an exhaustive coverage but a gradual improvement. And pointing out a single event with no context (the other comparable events) is not a gradual improvement, but a spotty one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The list you highlight in Aviation Herald also includes definitely minor issues - 'engine vibrations near Omsk' or 'oil leaks'. One item isnt even a Trent 1000, for the A380 its the predecessor Trent 900. The issue is really about serious uncontained engine failures where parts of the plane and or buildings on the ground. Repeating the IFSD criteria, 99% which are minor doesnt seem to provide any basis for excluding the major uncontained failures like this one. Im sure you are more than capable of knowing the difference. Okerefalls (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

AvHerald is not even an exhaustive list but a collection of incidents, and it's a string search, not a tag search. An uncontained engine failure would be notable if it had serious consequences: crash, casualties or damage to the airplane putting it in danger. The only thing notable about the incident is it spilled small metal parts over a large city. Over the countryside, it would have received much less coverage. If you think uncontained engine failures are notable, you have some catch up to do in many other engine articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why even provide the Aviation Herald list if its the incorrect type of search? Do you check these things first. This sort of scattergun approach which you then say isnt important isnt improving this article. I have to repeat again the notability criteria, its not yours or mine but "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". There was an uncontained GE90 engine failure on a Thai Airways 777-300ER on Oct 20ththai-777-300er-suffers-engine-failure-on-departure. It seems to have been mentioned in passing in the Aviation press but NOT otherwise seen as notable as these engines are regarded as very reliable. Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines have had a continued series of reliability issues , and thats whats makes them more notable in the reliable sources and this reflected in the Wikipedia article even before the Rome incident. Same goes with an Air France A380 GP7200 engine engine cowling/front fan failure, it received plenty of coverage because 'its an A380" , The Wiki GP7000 article mentions it , as would be expected.Okerefalls (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I added the one important metric in the article: the IFSD rate, of 1/500k h. The GE90 is better at 1/M h but the trent XWB is even better at 1/2M h. Anyway, we stated our POVs many times already, and since we produced an indecipherable wall of text for a minor incident, no one will read it and no consensus will be reached. I would say the GP7200 incident received a wide coverage due to its long and costly search for parts. The Thai GE90 incident is similar to yours.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rome incident seem a bit out of place when we dont have a detailed list of other ISFDs, the IPT blade issues are already discussed in the article. If we have a reliable source that links all these unmentioned failures then that can be added in the blades discussion but listing one failure event as a stand-alone gives undue weight when it is not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a new article from Flight Global which links the earlier Trent 1000 service issues with this particular uncontained failure ( plus details the plane damage-"sustained damage not only to the engine exhaust cone but also the left wing, flap fairing, horizontal stabiliser, fuselage and main landing-gear tyres). As I said previously its the coverage in reliable sources that makes an incident notable that otherwise wouldnt be. Okerefalls (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As MilborneOne reminded, this incident should be listed among other ISFDs, unless listing only one event gives it undue weight.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)please indent correctly, thanks

El Al flight LY28 on Nov 28 2023

An (Trent 1000) engine failed during this flight. The plane had to land an emergency landing.

I am not a professional in this field, but this should be added by one to the failure envents. Roykey (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unable to find an official incident report (NTSB etc), engine did not fail but was throttled back to idle as a precaution after an EICAS overheat warning, aircraft declared mayday (SOP) and returned without incident to JFK, taxiing to the gate under its own power. Without any investigation and cause available the incident can not be added, notability can not be established. It could have even been a false warning. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)