220 Pilots, what are you thoughts so far??

[telex]

This is why airlines stick to what has always worked. Like a 737.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/a22 ... 66.article

You mean like the Max? Cause it just worked so well.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

I deadheaded on one for the first time the other day. I did notice a bit of resonance in the cabin. Sort of a rumble. I assume it’s from the engine speeds not being matched. Otherwise it was nice.

That would be a wrong assumption because this airplane actually has a FADEC setting to SYNC the engine N1 speeds to minimize harmonic noise in the aircraft. The left engine is the master(reference) and the right is the slave. The EEC fuel trims the right engine to sync the engine speeds. This function operates while in cruise.

[brooks]

Because a poorly drained cabin door causing an inflight shutdown is no big deal.

[Fanblade]

Because a poorly drained cabin door causing an inflight shutdown is no big deal.

Kinda like an MCAS issue causing.........

Design issues are not uncommon in new aircraft. They are more like the norm. It is why initial cost is lower.

[goldeneagle]

Because a poorly drained cabin door causing an inflight shutdown is no big deal.

The article I saw said it was during taxi.

[Gino Under]

Of course, this would NEVER happen on a “real” Airbus while taxiing or flying. Naw! Never. Not on an Airbus. Especially the newest Airbus model, the A350!
Wait a minute. Have you read this?

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_ ... 0-0090R1_1

[rxl]

This is why airlines stick to what has always worked. Like a 737.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/a22 ... 66.article

Yup. That’s why we’re all still flying DC-3’s.

[teacher]

6 month on type and still liking it. New software load coming which will cure a few coding anomalies. This is a very software and checklist driven machine. Kinks are slowly being ironed out. It’ll take time. The usual complaining of “it doesn’t do it like my old type” is common but that will fade as people get used to it, adapt to new procedures and issues get resolved.

Everyone forgets all the established planes went through the same things or worse.

Now if only we could climb above FL290! Rumours are something coming soon........

[UNS1C]

6 months flying it and Love It.....awesome machine .....and there is no perfect plane that’s for sure.......two biggest complaints for me are seat doesn’t recline far enough and the sun visor is terrible design......

[Gino Under]

I believe your FL290 restriction is self-imposed. As I recall, there’s a procedure involving AT Disconnect and CLB settings. Is there not?
Surely, that can’t be much of a challenge to achieve better fuel economy?

Gino Under

[teacher]

There is a procedure but it was determined that with so many new pilots with no time on type and a non-standard procedure and such small tolerances it was not worth the risk. Rumour is a software patch will limit N1 above flight level 290 until a hardware fix is incorporated sometime next year.

[Gino Under]

So, would the use of manual thrust be allowed below FL290, especially for those new on type? You’d think AC would be all over and very much in favour of improving pilot manual flying skills. I can’t imagine a type rated airline pilot would have any concern or problem with setting an N1 value manually. Regardless of altitude.
I must say, I’d be really surprised if the rationale behind the restriction is due to SOP and wonder what it would have to do with SOP anyway?
Have your pilot qualifications and experience really fallen to that level on such an easy aircraft to fly?
Does an adjustment to the climb speed schedule help with the N1 range/margin in the climb while an EEC software update is pending?

Gino Under, Ret.

[Air.Field]

sarcasm How anyone flown jets before auto thrust must be a mystery, how'd those pilots do it?

Does the company not trust its pilots skills? Just another step towards automation, where you just sit there and let the plane fly you? (I hear this happens in soviet Russia (simpsons ref))

[Fidget]

Like someone posted, tolerances are tight. If N1 is exceeded, the time above it has to be recorded and accurate. A boroscope may be required before next flight. Safer to stay below where there are no restrictions. Not worth the risk of going above and potentially getting an engine failure. No issues staying at FL 290 or 280 even during the summer.

Nothing to do with pilot skill. If they wish AT off is allowed If they want to “improve” their flying skill. Like that will help anybody. Sheesh

Edited for stupid touchscreen.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

Maybe, just maybe, Flt Ops has determined that the rewards associated with climbing > FL290 do not outweigh the risks, since even small N1 exceedances could mean an engine change.

[Gino Under]

Tolerances are tight, but at an identified altitude range and timed power setting. Climb Thrust limit reduces as you near optimum and fuel efficiency improves dramatically at the higher altitudes. AC maintenance obviously feel the risk/reward benefits to climb for efficiency of operation isn’t worth the drama and bad publicity of any engine failure, fire or IFSD. That’s a responsible approach to the AD. But, no reflection on the A220’s capabilities. Right?
The use of manual thrust on the PW1521G, isn’t that finicky to cause such paranoia over the setting of N1 values for climb, but there you go.
Still a great aeroplane.

Gino Under, Ret.

[Fidget]

From an internal document. “Investigations are ongoing to determine the root cause. Preliminary investigation results indicate high altitude climbs at higher thrust settings for engines with certain thrust ratings may be a contributor. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the aeroplane.“

Nobody is knocking the plane. I personally like it a lot and it will be even better with the new software load. Flt ops made this decision along with commercial decision makers. Obviously management have knowledge that people on this forum don’t have. It’s their plane and we will fly it the way they want. Nobody on this forum will change that. We have the former C Series Chief Pilot and one of their test pilots on staff, I trust what they have to say. Like I said, the moment you go above the N1 limit on the PW1524G-3, a boroscope may be required. It’s that finicky. Like I said no issues for us staying that low since last year. The being said, I don’t wish to stay there forever.

[BMLtech]

Still blows my mind that an engine with this serious of a design issue made it through validation and certification wow.

[fish4life]

Still blows my mind that an engine with this serious of a design issue made it through validation and certification wow.

I think they only found it out after a few in flight shit downs, flight testing can only simulate so much and will never fly anywhere near the number of hours of multiple operators flying multiple planes every day.

[BMLtech]

Still blows my mind that an engine with this serious of a design issue made it through validation and certification wow.

I think they only found it out after a few in flight shit downs, flight testing can only simulate so much and will never fly anywhere near the number of hours of multiple operators flying multiple planes every day.

I have a hard time buying that because this issue showed up so early on in the program. They hang these engines on a 747 flying test bed and take them up to high altitude and wring them out, and with heavy additional instrumentation. How they didn't pick up on this major resonance problem that can cause the engine to shed its guts is beyond me.If anything I would have expected in service problems with the fan reduction gearbox. I think the delay in getting it fixed is a sign that a software update alone may not cut the mustard.While it may be possible for pilots to carefully manage the engine to prevent issues, for certification you will need to be able to ham fist the thrust lever however you want in any part of the envelope without worry.

[L39Guy]

Still blows my mind that an engine with this serious of a design issue made it through validation and certification wow.

It would be difficult to find a new engine, particularly one with a major shift in technology like the geared turbofan engines powering the C-Series, MAX, etc., that did not have teething problems after they are certified and enter operational service.

Both engines types powering the B787 have had difficulties - the CFM's were limited wrt to high altitude/humid conditions for a while, the RR engines had metallurgical issues (I recall but that may not be totally accurate) that had BA, Virgin, etc. grounding their B787 aircraft.

Engines, because they are the key component in the fuel efficiency equation (aerodynamics is pretty mature) are constantly pushing the technological envelope and having difficulties appear once they enter service is par for the course.

[BMLtech]

Still blows my mind that an engine with this serious of a design issue made it through validation and certification wow.

It would be difficult to find a new engine, particularly one with a major shift in technology like the geared turbofan engines powering the C-Series, MAX, etc., that did not have teething problems after they are certified and enter operational service.

Both engines types powering the B787 have had difficulties - the CFM's were limited wrt to high altitude/humid conditions for a while, the RR engines had metallurgical issues (I recall but that may not be totally accurate) that had BA, Virgin, etc. grounding their B787 aircraft.

Engines, because they are the key component in the fuel efficiency equation (aerodynamics is pretty mature) are constantly pushing the technological envelope and having difficulties appear once they enter service is par for the course.

I agree that other new engines have also had serious in service issues. Anything that can lead to uncontained failure is a pretty big deal. Those guys that saved the Quantas A380 deserve a hero cookie for sure. Operating at the edge of technology is risky no doubt. Back in the day most new technology was validated in military service before transitioning to commercial.Now not so much.

[Gino Under]

BMLtech

Nice try.
The current PW1524G issue isn't the same issue that caused the on-ground engine fire and shutdown during initial certification as you've stated without evidence. In fact, the certification flight tests were suspended during the investigation and a remedy found before it was released to continue flight testing.

The CTSB found that;
quote,
1) 0011 section 3.c. (original version) or 2.c. (rev.A), as written, as an alternative equal to the other shutdown options contained in the RSI resulted in the engines being exposed to one or more “hot shutdowns.”
2) The hot shutdowns resulted in heat soaking beyond the design criteria of the No. 4 bearing oil feed tube’s Teflon C-seal.
3) The detrimental effect of heat soaking sustained during hot shutdowns on the bearing compartment tubes’ Teflon C-seals was not foreseen by Pratt & Whitney during the development of Restriction and/or Special Instructions (RSI) No. F-500-001-71-011.
4) Heat soaking caused the oil feed tube’s Teflon C-seal in the No. 4 bearing to fail, which allowed engine oil to merge with the turbine rotor’s cooling air stream.
5) The resulting air/oil mixture then encountered ambient temperatures that were above its auto-ignition point, and the ensuing combustion heated the low-pressure turbine rotor to the point of failure.
6) The failure of the low-pressure turbine rotor was uncontained and resulted in major damage to the engine, nacelle, and wing.

Gino Under

[teacher]

Memo issued. The A220 can be flight planned above FL290 starting Tuesday. Software load will limit N1 to 95.2% and monitor for any exceeded power settings.

Hardware fix more than likely in the new year.

[BMLtech]

How are things now that they let you off the leash? How's it performing at the higher flight levels? Is it climb power limited?