TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12132 times:
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4906 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11961 times:
PA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1950 posts, RR: 26 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11859 times:
Ouch! Brand new A330... just replaced the vintage DC10 service from SFO. That will hurt!
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11771 times:
This no way for a brand new airliner in the fleet to start its career off. What is its registration? You do know that this has to be an A332. And when somebody knows, is the aircraft going to be flyable again?
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11748 times:
Here is a video of what appears to be gear problem....
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11686 times:
Hot Brakes.... No Biggie
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Aerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4634 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11620 times:
I wonder what the engine problems were..
I'm so tempted to rant on like the anti-777 folks do, but I digress...........
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11556 times:
Boeing7E7,
You have to look at things in a fair way. I'm sure the DC-10 gave NWA some nice issues when it went into service the first times so that's not a boeing/airbus issue. What's interesting though is that all the 777s that had engine trouble lately had PW engines if I Remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong). This A330 has PWs too...so what's up with the reliability of the PWs? especially the PW-40XX versions.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11484 times:
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11468 times:
Delayed our flight for :30 as we were waiting to take off from NRT.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11430 times:
To me it sounds like hot brakes from a maximum weight landing with no reverse thrust selected. Which is what the captain would do if there is engine trouble.
Remember those great 777 videos of the rejected takeoffs and the white-hot brake discs?
As for recent 777 problems with engines, all three variants have shown up recently so it's not an exclusively Pratt problem. It's just the way of things. Sh1t happens as they say....
4everRC From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 322 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11388 times:
&@%#^@%#^*&@$%#&^!!!!!!!
I was off work early to go see it at SFO when it got here!
Jc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 537 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11320 times:
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5341 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10897 times:
Someone above posted something interesting, which raises a few questions in my mind...
"Remember those great 777 videos of the rejected takeoffs and the white-hot brake discs?"
Yes, I DO remember them, and that's just the point. In the triple seven tests, the brakes did not catch fire. In the Airbus widebody tests, they DID catch fire- remember the pics on this site of the A346??? Go check them out...
Talk about egg on face.
The issue here to me, folks, is not engine trouble, as that happens. All three suppliers to the 777 have had troubles, and the A330 as well. Certain gliders come to mind, thanks Rolls Royce.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10731 times:
AA737
So you definitely know the brakes caught fire? Can you provide a link? Or was it just smoke from overheated components and tyres? I presume having four axles and eight main wheels to spread the braking force over against the 777's six/twelve is irrelevant too?
As for your Rolls Royce comment, that was a fuel line/maintenance issue and not an engine malfunction.
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10625 times:
Certain gliders come to mind, thanks Rolls Royce.
Just noticed this. The Air Transat incident was a maintenance error and had not nothing to do with an error. The TS maintenance team had put a fuel line from another model which did not fit the Trent 772B-60 on C-GITS correctly.
As a result, the line scrapped and rubbing against other parts and eventually severed over the atlantic, causing the aircraft to dump 37,000 gallons of fuel into the atlantic.
Dtwintlflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 301 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10399 times:
Hot brakes....let's all get up in arms about the A330! Yes, it is a big deal, but not this big. It isn't like it hasn't happened to similar a/c in the past (and I think the topic headline is a bit of a stretch)
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10312 times:
Eh get over the stupid anti-Airbus pro-whatever crap, I think they'res more important things to discuss. Will this seriously effect NW's ETOPS ability, and if so, will that effect their near-term route planning with the A330?
Neilalp From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9778 times:
I think everyone is reacting the way they are b/c it was a brand new plane and it provides a bad image for NW.
Azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3555 posts, RR: 30 Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9532 times:
Another nice airliners.net thread where nobodsy knows what the heck they're talking about. Big deal! Teething pains happen all the time with new planes.
Afay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9024 times:
Yes, it is another reason to buy Ilyushin. Anyway, sh*t happens, engines have trouble, tires catch on fire. OK, so the 777's usually don't, doesn't mean the A330 sucks or is unsafe, just costs the airlines some $$$. Anyway, the DC-10 had the whole "engine falling off inflight" problem at the beginning not to mention others....
NWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8780 times:
I watched the clip, and it doesn't look like a fire and just a reflection. BTW, could someone translate what they were saying?
Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
25 Iowa744fan: AirxLiban, Took a little while to compose myself after that one! Thanks for giving me a great laugh!
26 StargoldLHR: If you ask me they should bring back the VC10.
27 AirxLiban: Iowa744fan, i'm glad you had a good laugh but what are you talking about?
28 Nwfltattendant: Wow... im still looking here for substantiated information instead of this crap of 'oh i heard this from a person who works down the hall who sits nex
29 Whitehatter: Eh get over the stupid anti-Airbus pro-whatever crap, I think they'res more important things to discuss. Will this seriously effect NW's ETOPS ability
30 Ua777222: As long as the flight is on the ground and no one other than the a/c was damamged then the a/c did its job. The statment $HIT HAPPENS can and will go
31 Flybynight: I wonder if NW has extra engines at Narita. I would guess so since it is a hub. Hmm, if not, maybe there will soon be pictures of a 5-engine 747 or a
32 Whitehatter: If it does need a swap, then the Antonovs will probably be gracing Narita. They seem to have the handle on engine ferry flights lately. I don't think
33 ANA767: I couldn't understand every word from the NHK video clip, but they said that Northwest flight 28, an Airbus 330, to San Francisco had to return to the
34 BR715-A1-30: Can somebody say: BRING IN THE DC-9s ::Ducks under the table:: All you gotta do is add a few extra fuel tanks. ::Hides under the table::
35 PSU.DTW.SCE: A whole lot of you people here are being rediculous! And the media is just as bad too! Ok, so the flight crew notices something irregular with an engi
36 Afay1: The 747 can indeed carry an extra engine, do a search of the database and you'll find examples. It looks pretty cool, must cause some pause on the par
37 Learjet23: 747 was built to ferry an extra engine on a special pod if needed. I saw an example of this in a 1968 Boeing Co. drawing. The plane was not yet out, a
38 Spacecadet: The 747 can indeed carry an extra engine, do a search of the database and you'll find examples. He didn't say the 747 couldn't carry an extra engine.
39 Aerobalance: I can't wait for a T7 to have another engine flame-out so I may witness all the Boeing-bashers jump on that one, ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.
40 Yyz717: Hard landing with a heavy A330 with reverse thrust not available.....again a standard procedure Why can't reverse thrust be used on a heavy landing?
41 JMChladek: Well, if its reverse thrust on a heavy landing with one engine shut down on a twin engine aircraft, then that could cause a bit of a problem with assy
42 Syncmaster: "Why can't reverse thrust be used on a heavy landing?" I could be wrong...but I think what he meant is that if they had engine problems (which is what
43 Greaser: After this incident, i wanna know... Do airlines pay for the emergency services after?? is there a surcharge for the delayed flights???
44 Carpethead: I just read that Airbus designs its aircraft so that it doesn't need to dump fuel. Therefore, the NW 332 made a high gross-weight landing that would c
45 Solnabo: "NW should bought the T7" "A330 is crap...their loss!" Grow out of the sandbox, my us-fellas Nothing like that could ever happend to the T7!!! *coff*
46 N79969: The plane was not on fire. It just had really, really hot brakes and kicked off a ton of steam. It was pretty minor incident in the big picture. Solan
47 Boeing764: Smoking brakes after a high weight landing are indeed common on aircraft equipped with carbon brakes. Have a look at this A300ST landing at Hamburg us
48 WJA73G: This happens all of the time, remember the WS 732 in YQR? Everyone made a huge fuss over it but it was really, nothing. When a situation like this is
49 Btblue: >HlywdCatft >Thank God no one got hurt in this... >Maybe Northwest should consider the 7E7 a little more now. Why? Because the brakes heated up? Big d
50 SonicKidatBWI: Afay1 ". . . Anyway, the DC-10 had the whole "engine falling off inflight" problem at the beginning not to mention others . . ." No it [DC-10] didn't!
51 Andrewtang: Airbus A330 does not come with Fuel Jettision capabilities unless requested for installation by the airline (eg Emirates). Northwest's A330-323X don't
52 Fritzi: I hope that most people in this thread NEVER work within the aviation business! When a airplane has an emergency, why do you fools have to go about sa
53 Gigneil: No other reason than they're idiots that like to hear themselves speak. There's been little fact in this thread, but I can sum some of it up: 1) As N7
54 Warren747sp: Wouldn't it be a lot safer to land a plane with a lot less fuel and weight in an emergency situation? What are they thinking not be able to dump fuel?
55 Gigneil: Warren- If I'm not mistaken, its standard on the 777 and 747, but an option on other models. The 737, for example, I'm not sure its needed on. Airbus
Sponsor Message: 
From Slovakia, joined Jan 2004, 814 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
