CPAir 4 life From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 209 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3688 times:
I was watching the news, and I saw an American Airlines 777 making an emergency landing with 1 engine out. The crew had to dump fuel.
This thew me a little, because the 777 has not been involved in a situation when 1 engine went out to my knowledge (I'm probably wrong)
The landing was PERFECT, it just gently glided to a soft touchdown in SFO I believe. I also believe the flight was bound for Japan.
If anybody has posted this already, sorry if I missed it
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Boeing's book 'Flightlines' says that a 757-200 once took off, flew, and landed on one engine. It was empty, obviously, and from low altitude (Seattle), not the typical 'high and dry' thing 757s are good at.
"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
I had a Air France 777 capt. in my store he flew the first 777 from Charles de gualle to LAX. He lost an engine in the 777 over the atlantic and landed on the island in the Atlantic. He claims it flew fine on one but if he lost the other one he would have been a day late a dollar (maybe a franc) short.
Droneklax From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Where can I find more info on this AF incident? AF recently started using the 777 on the LAX-CDG route.
What "island of the Atlantic" are we talking about? Iceland? Greenland? How come we have not heard about this? When did this happen?
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Actually, the Air France incident did happen. If memory serves, it was about a year ago. The plane landed without incident in the Canary Islands (the infamous Teneref, I believe). The passengers were flown out and the engine eventually replaced. The French gov't used this incident to restrict AF's ETOPS to 120 mins (instead of 180) but that decision didn't last long.
Barnaby, if you truly love the 777 as I do, don't jump to conclusions about posters who are just trying to verify information. It makes us all look bad.
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1829 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2642 times:
When BA first introduced the GE90 powered 777 (wonderful American engines them...) they had a couple of inflight shutdowns whilst on test runs. GE had to modify the fanblades I think as well - all the a/c had to be meticulously inspected after flights over 1.1h - see FI for details.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2634 times:
It is this kind of situation that bothers me if one of the two engines on a 767 or 777 fails while over the largest part of the Atlantic or Pacific. What if you are miles from land? Can the other engine take the stress? This is where the debate of 2 vs. 4 engines comes into play. For a trip from SFO or LAX to Japan or Australia, this is the route that a three engine DC-10, MD-11, or L-1011 and four engine A340 & 747 should be used. What do you think?
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
Hi to all!
First: Hamlet69, if you come aroud the forum often, you'll see that Barnaby's position is not to love 777 nor any Boeing, but to hate every Airbus A/Cs and Airbus supporters, and he/she shows it by insulting and posting silly words against everybody.
Second: Barnaby, as you see by the reports here, the failures on 777s and other Boeings are not as impossible as your “superior” American technology mind is able to accept. Just see also how many M8Xs have been called to revise their tail stabilizators, and remember how many 737s had accidents in only one summer (I remember they were 16... By the way, that year I was to fly LGW-BCN back home on a BAW 732, two days after another BAW 732 had crashed on take off killing 32 at Sheffield, UK) or how many 717s/M95s have been called to review), or how many 744s have been found with problems of possible fire close to the engines fuel conducts.
Barnaby: open your eyes and be a little critic with yourself. No comments about technology: nowadays air technology is a dream for anyone who has been an engineer and evolution is so fast that is even difficult to understand.
YES: I am an Airbus enthousiast, because of their commonality logics, making four different A/Cs (A318-A319-A320-A321) of one only project (A32x), same with A300-A310 and A330-A340. But contrarely to what you would do, I liked the idea of the Boeing 757-200 & 757-300 as one common A/C.
And, although I am an AB-enthousiast, it is not a psyco-sexual problem to me the fact of accepting that is a weird idea to fly an aircraft with a joystick, that some 320s crashed at landings at the beginning, or that one Olympic Airways A300-B4 remained for three days on the ground at BCN because of several problems with one turbine, even aborted two T/Os loaded with passengers.
TO ALL: c'mon, guys: ALL TWINS are capable to complete an emergency take off on one engine, on the event of failure AFTER V1 or VR, meaning that they are able to keep on the air as long as for trowing fuel out and re-land, even full-loaded. Off course they won't climb very happy..., but they won't necessarily crash because of this; and ALL TWINS are able to fly for several hours (MUCH further than the 180 min trans-oceanic ETOPS required) with only one engine. Also, an A32x captain told me that is perfectly possible not only to land on one engine (actually it is possible to land WITHOUT engines at all), but it is also possible to slow down by using the reverse thrust, at least on small/medium aircrafts, even with engines below the wings, thus much more assimetric (32Xs and 757s) than tail-engined ones (727s, M8Xs, etc.)
Tailscraper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
This is getting to be quite an intresting thread, even if the topic has changed. Yep, pilots are managing 777 etc. engine failures at VR all the time in the sims. I think I would be fairly happy to fly the 777 across the Pacific, OK I would get a little nervous if one of the engines went, but so long as we had alternates (which they must have), I'd be OK.
My only engine failure experience, was on-board a BA 744 from EZE to LGW. We had been in the air about 20 mins when the No.2 made a bang. The Captain made a confirmation to the pax. in a reassuringly relaxed voice, so everyone was OK, although it was quite a loud bang. He contacted engineering in London, and they cleared him to proceed to Lisbon (!), so we flew in to LIS on 3 engines.
P.S. Very good landing, nice and smooth, no problems.
C-FTOD From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
I don't mean to criticize, but calling an engine shut down on the 777 a "non-event" is slightly an understatement. It dosen't matter if the plane can land itself or not. This IS NOT suppose to happen. Perhaps what you meant was that it would be a non-event for a pilot to handle.
There will be many questions asked, and it will be recorded in the airline incident report for the year.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10572 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2545 times:
Tedski asks: What if you are miles from land [when an engine fails]? Can the other engine take the stress?
The simple answer is, yes. That is in fact the specification that the engines used on twins are designed to, and that is the spec that ETOPS is based on. That is the exact reason why when everything is functional, twins are very overpowered. It's all because they have to be able to perform well on just one engine. (Having two is just icing on the cake.) So, don't see it as a twin having to perform on half its engines when something goes wrong. Think of it as a twin getting to have a spare engine that is not truly necessary in case something should go wrong.
As for West Coast to Asia (Japan in particular) you would be surprised to find out that these are only ETOPS 120 routes. Two hours on one engine is *nothing*.
As for the BA jet that went EZE-LGW on three engines, I'm quite surprised that the journey continued. Any flight in which a jet loses an engine should be put on the ground as soon as prudent. (Another loss means the plane *is* coming down like it or not no matter if the plane has 0/2 or 2/4 engines running.) I've talked to pilots in the US, and they have told me that if an engine fails, you put it on the ground no matter how many you have left. I would suspect (after looking at the great circle map) that the 744 that diverted to LIS had been flying for longer than 20 minutes before the engine quit. In that case, landing at LIS makes more sense. In 20 minutes, a 744 won't get up to its final cruising altitude, and on 3 engines, would really lumber up there potentially not making it to Lisbon at all.
Tailscraper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
DLX, you seem to know what you're talking about (no sarcasm-honest comment), but the fact was, that we departed EZE at 18:00 local, and I distinctly remembered looking at my watch after the bang: 18:26-so yes, we were still climbing, and and probably scarcely over the River Plate.
I posted this on the forum last year, and people were basically writing what you mentioned: they should have brought it back to EZE (the closest 744-capable airfield at the time)-And that's what I thought and still think, but there you go, they contacted LHR engineering, and went onwards (i.e. overnight, across the Atlantic, on 3). I've even mentioned this to an LHR controller, and he couldn't understand the rationale behind it either. But there you go, what can I say, at least we all landed at LIS in one piece!
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2523 times:
What is going on with the RR Trents on the 777 lately? First we had the GE90 having problems and now it's the RR Trent? Could it be that these two engines and the P&W version are overstressed or not durable enough to take the high thrust ratings required to power the 777?
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 987 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
I don't think 777 engines are overstressed, this seems to be a normal progression of the "teething curve" experienced when a design is starting to mature. There are now well over 100 777's in service (maybe over 200?) and it takes a lot of cycles and time to start realizing some design weaknesses, all of which usually take very little "tweaking" to remedy.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2500 times:
I really would have no qualms about flying over any thing on a 777. First - what are the odds of an engine going? Second - what are the odds of that other engine going? Third - no one has ever seen the 777 do an emergency water landing, and the 707 that tried it recently stayed in one piece, so what are the odds of dying? I'm not going to calculate them, but I'll guess that they're not worth worrying about. Also - why on Earth would they bother turning a 4 around if it lost one engine? Sure it's probably good protocol, but realisticaly, the things are just fine with 3. If I were on a 744 going somewhere and an engine went out, I'd be mighty annoyed if they turned around instead of just going to where they needed to get with a limp engine.
"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10572 posts, RR: 53 Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2499 times:
The issue is that neither a plane with 1 of 2 engines or a plane with 3 of 4 engines functional has particularly good climb performance. Not a big deal if you're just manouvering to get the plane back on a runway (which is much prefered over say having a more firm landing somewhere else...) but the range of a plane is greatly determined by its ability to take certain altitudes when carrying a certain load. On long haul trips, you would surely expect a flight to begin at 33K feet and as fuel is burned off climb to 39K or possibly more because the plane gets more efficient at these altitudes. Being forced to fly low is probably the entire reason why the BA jet could only make it to Lisbon. Also, that blown engine is dead weight, and possibly a serious drag if the blades are damaged. So, not only is it not producing thrust, it is acting like a parachute slowing the plane down. That's not good.
If the flight was not over the ocean yet, (and it wouldn't be after just 20 minutes) it really seems stupid to put it in more peril where there are no good immediate landing strips when there are suitable landing strips in the immediate vicinity. The only issue would have been to dump fuel, which is quite costly for the airline, and I seriously hope that is not the reason why they continued.
BTW, remind me not to fly British Airways. This is the second incident that I've heard of them not turning around a long haul jet when an engine failed. Their pilots seem to have a case of get-there-itis.
Yaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
Did anyone hear of Air Europe Italy 777 engine fire on takeoff out of Malpensa I think it was Dec.29,99? The fire was caused by a fuel nozzle not safety wired at P&W. The engine was shutdown and aircraft returned to Malpensa, I believe it was bound for Havana so it was probably pretty heavy. I know that Air Europe was the launch airline for Pratt 777s in Europe but haven't heard of any repercusions on ETOPS with JAA or Italian or Irish authorities.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 13 Reply 24, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2452 times:
I'm not arguing with you; I do agree that an engine failure is serious business.
However, those were the words taken from the Discovery Channel and then reiteriated verbatium during a visit by the chief 777 designer here at Purdue.
He said that the designers didn't want the pilots fiddling with anything they didn't have to. This is from the 777 Chief Mechanic and Designer, these are not my words. He said that they designed the 777 so that the pilots didn't have to worry about the mechanical aspect. The computer reads 9000 parameters and maybe 900 of that are mission-critical 'alerts'. Those alerts are nothing more than a series of chimes and a warning on the EFIS.
Ever wonder why there's so few circut breakers in the cockpit of the 777... they 'hid' most of them under the aircraft so the pilots couldn't pull them.
Remember that human factors are the number 1 cause of aviation related accidents.
So... I'm justified in saying that an engine failure on the 777 is a 'non-event'.
- Neil Harrison
25 OPNLguy: Pilot1113 wrote: ------------------------------- .Remember that human factors are the number 1 cause of aviation related accidents. So... I'm justifie
26 Leon: Someone said ETOPS trans pacific to Japan is only 120. Anyone know the divert points along the way? Seems like there could be longer diversions than 1
27 D L X: The great circle route from the west coast to Japan takes you fairly close to Alaska and the Russian far east. Singapore is a different story, but you
28 Tailscraper: OK, for those that were debating about that 744 flight that opted to continue to LIS overnight on 3 engines: I have e-mailed a BA pilot (he is a frien
29 Pilot1113: That's what Purdue teaches us anyways (that human factors are the #1 cause of accidents). That's what the NTSB guys told our class... who should I bel
30 Yaki1: Ten years carrying pax? I don't think so, wasn't first flight in 95?
31 Pilot1113: Yaki1 wrote: ------------------------------- Ten years carrying pax? I don't think so, wasn't first flight in 95? >> I thought it premered in 1993 or
32 LN-KGL: The first commericial Boeing 777-200 was delivered to United Airlines on 05/24/95. The aircraft has the registration number N766UA. This is according
33 Hmmmm...: Observation: If a twin-engined plane like the 777 loses an engine at cruise, it can not maintain altitude, right? It needs both engines to stay high.
34 Ruscoe: Obviously a quad will have a lower degradation in performance than a twin. However, a twin has a much greater margin of excess power than a quad, so i
35 D L X: The fact is folks, if you have two engines or four, they both perform the same when one engine is malfunctioning. I don't know the answer to Hmm's que
36 Yaki1: Remember when ETOPS you must proceed to the nearest alternate with four it is possible to continue. This is important when one considers the cost and
37 OPNLguy: D L X wrote: ------------------------------- >>>Aircraft engines produce much much more thrust than required at cruise. *True >>>If they weren't throt
38 Hmmmm...: So from what OPNLGUY is saying, that a routine shutdown of one engine on a 747, say, or an A340, might not interupt the flight. Yet, a 777, would be f
39 Tailscraper: Hmmmm, if you look at my post (you may have already), entitled "BA744 limp to LIS", you'll see that even our 4-engined jet couldn't actually reach it'