Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777X And GE-90  
User currently offlineGoA340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Bad combination for Boeing? Some 777 operators already started to complain about the single engine choice (i.e. Flight International Magazine July 21st issue) Boeing might end up losing orders to A340-500/600 and it might cost the company a lot more than the $100 million that GE agreed to help in developing the longer range 777 derivatives. (GE-90 already came out to be the most problematic of the 777 engine choice with the least orders. On top of it the 777 over 7500+ miles range with only two and problematic engines might leave some questions in the minds of operators and even passangers!)


30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2281 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Agreed. As the article points out, many 777 customers are complaining. They have a right, too. The GE90 was almost written off. If that had been the launch engine for the 777, the aircraft would never have gotten off the ground. Thank goodness for Pratt & Whitney's PW4000.


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

...and one more reason -possibly- why CAL is opting for the A340 and A330 duo (G)

Here's a tack on the 777 from a differing perspective but it's related in this.

Looking at the CAL A340 and A330 order, it makes sense from an engine perspective for CAL in doing what it did, it eliminated the need for another engine type.

CAL likes PW engines on it's fleet. If it had gone for the 777, it would probably gone for the PW offering there. But, it's a -totally different- engine from its younger "children" in the PW4000 lineup.

Another consideration is the safety factor and how much of a microscope has been focused upon CAL here in Taiwan inrecent years. The thought of ETOPS experience needed to be built with this airplane on top of just -two engines- on ultra long haul flights I believe is a bit too much for the Taiwan public and government to stomach. If there's so much as one incident with it, the public will avoid it. I'm not kidding. it happened after the A300 accidents. Whereas with 4 engines, it adds a safer margin to it. It -really is- an issue that people notice here.

Looking at the CFM engine that powers the 737-800 and the prior 737-400 fleet CAL operated coupled with the A300 fleet it's had in operationsince the 80s, you now have a dual degree of commonality on the A340s. As for the A330s, again, you have commonality of airframe as well as engine. I would bet that CAL orders the PW4168 class engine for it's A330s. Which also puts it more in commonality with it's 747-400 and MD-11 fleet which use the PW4000.

Score another one for Airbus (G).

Now, looking on the GE and Boeing decision, it will be interesting how this pans out. I think it was quite risky to do what they did, and especially with an engine that has had it's share of very serious problems with it. RE: British Airways. (The likes of the problems are astonishing according to a friend of mine who has friends at BA maintenance-they've -never- seen an engine with so many problems in BA's corporate history!!)

Wonder if Boeing fumbled the ball again? (They've done it before (G) Great airplane, but it's engines make it fly. If the engines have a less than desireable record, can we say this is a good decision to make given the track record? Time will tell.

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

But to be fair, is not the Airbus A340-500/600 exclusive to Rolls Royce engines? From memory, the Pratt could not be upgraded as easily as the GE could, thereby basically requiring a whole new engine design.

I think that GE got it by defaut in that Pratt and Rolls did not want to spend the money for developing a new engine. Remember, A340 has 4 engines, so development cost can be spread over half the airplanes.

Just a thought....


User currently offlineGoA340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

Actually the Trent 500s do not have an exclusive to Airbus at least after 2003. That is the reason why PW is on its way of developing a competing engine. RR was ready to launch an increased trust Trent for the new 777, and RR being the most popular engine for the type, it should have been expected that some customers like Cathay, BA (which initially ordered GE-90s but then shifted to RR Trents) and AA were going to be pissed-off.

User currently offlineCV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3015 times:


Is this new engine for the 777 synonymous with the "102,000 lb. thrust" class that has been mentioned in the press, or are we talking about something even newer?

I recall reading about the RR Trent series and how they're chomping at the bit to go up over 100,000 lb., and yup, I'd be pretty p.o.'d if the airframe manufacturer said 'see ya', especially after the (apparently) stellar performance of the Trent on the 777.


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

Not yet...(G)

Currently the RR Trent is what is offered but it is by no means an exclusive choice. There is an alternative powerplant that PW is pursuing for the A340-500/600 that I believe is dubbed the PW8000. If this alternative engine pans out for the A340-500/600 then Airbus will be able to field more of a choice on its product, competitively giving it quite an advantage.

PW is pushing for this and Airbus might just go for it to take advantage of this exclusivity problem that is showing it's head with the GE-777X linkup. PW and RR are already working on the IAE partnership and they could conceivably reap benefits dually if they were the only engine choices on the A340-500/600. Sales wise it would prove a boon for Airbus. Airlines may be more inclined to buy an Airbus with two engine choices, versus a 777 with only one (and a problematic record at that).

I think Airbus and PW learned a lot from the early A340 years when cancellation of orders ensued after the IAE "SuperFan" development of the V2500 was terminated. This was the engine of choice that Northwest wanted on it's cancelled A340 order. When IAE dropped out, Northwest pulled the plug on the A340-300. But now, with hindsight (G) Airbus and PW may be more inclined to do it. It would be foolish not to. (G)

It will be a risk worth taking I believe, as airlines take a long hard look at the GE engine problems especially and weigh the risk of going that route. In fact, if Boeing sticks to its exclusivity and cant launch the 777X series because of it, (which is quite possible now) more layoffs and management shakeups are probably around the corner.

Airlines will most probably stick to the -200 and -300 models as it is now and forgo the 777X. Boeing would have in effect a stillborn aircraft program thanks to not considering it's customer's engine preferences.

Can we say a replay of the L-1011? (G) I dont know...but it's possible we're seeing the beginning of a replay of that. That was an airplane that was considered revolutionary and technologically superior, yet it's Achilles Heel was it's reliance on one engine manufacturer, Rolls Royce, who also had early problems with the RB211 powerplant which bankrupted RR.

Many airlines wanted the L-1011 with GE or PW engines on it, when Lockheed refused, the big carriers like UAL, American, Continental..walked away. Theres a similarity in some ways here, not all but some.

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

CV880 wrote:
-------------------------------

Is this new engine for the 777 synonymous with the "102,000 lb. thrust" class that has been mentioned in the press, or are we talking about something even newer?
---------------------------

Yup, this is a newer generation development of the GE90 engine that it says it can crank up to 115,000 to 120,000 pounds. Imagine -that- flying apart inflight? (G)

---------------------------
I recall reading about the RR Trent series and how they're chomping at the bit to go up over 100,000 lb., and yup, I'd be pretty p.o.'d if the airframe manufacturer said 'see ya', especially after the (apparently) stellar performance of the Trent on the 777.
---------------------------

Exactly and that's what I'm reading referencing American and Cathay Pacific's new joint-effort (courtesy of OneWorld I would imagine) Trent engine maintenance facility that cost them big bucks. I expect Airbus to reap quite a windfall in orders because of this, especially if they offer the PW8000 on the A340-500/600.

I think this was a -dumb- (with a Capital D (G) move for Boeing. (G)

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineAC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Well, I agree that the single engine choice is not a good thing for the 777. What I don't see is why Boeing doesn't try to develop a 4 engined variant of the 777 fuselage. While Airbus and Boeing may have different features otherwise that may make on or the other a better choice for an airline, depending on several factors, one of the big things I think the A330/A340 family has going for it is that it has a choice of the number of engines inherent in it. The twins are fine for shorter range flights, and transatlantic flights, where the distances are not as great and there are airports in Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland if something goes wrong, but the 4 engines is a really good thing for pacific routes. Also the 4 engines are probably safer on hot and high takeoffs. I don't see why Boeing shouldn't do that, I'm sure some customers would at least rather have 4 engines. It would probably be enough to secure orders from Qantas, among others, and I would bet alot of operators would choose to operate both 2 and 4 engine variants.

As far as I'm concerned, 3 is actually the optimum number of engines, but it's harder to change around the wing or fuselage configuration or put on different engines in later variants. However, I would think that an aircraft like an L-1011 could today offer a compromise of twin engine fuel economy and operational costs with the safety and reliablity of the four engine aircraft.


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

I continue to be amazed at the calcified thinking of this forum. The GE90, contrary to what has been said by some on this forum, is not a bad engine and in fact is very dependable and has shown less performance degradation than the other engine models. Within the last month, someone on this forum (I'll not mention the name) cited a Continental 777 having to shut down a GE90 on a flight to Japan. What he failed to mention was it was because Continental did not put enough oil in the engine (which the airline admitted) and had nothing to do with the engine or it's design. It could have happened to any of the engines (remember the Eastern L1011 with all 3 RB211's siezing due to lack of oil?).
More importantly than that though, is the limited thinking regarding 2 engined aircraft over water. I personally have no problem with it and cannot recall any instance of a 2 engined aircraft going down with a multiple engine failure (and this includes high cycle shorter haul aircraft certified to non-ETOPS standards). The only 2 times I've heard of airliners in the modern era losing all engines was due to fuel exhaustion (Air Canada 767 and TACA 737-300) and this problem would occur in a 2 or 4 engined aircraft. Does anyone else know of any 737's, A319/320/321's, MD80's, A300's, A310's, 757's, 767's, 777's, A330's, going down due to a failure of both engines? Remember, these engines on the 737/A320 class aircraft are certified to less stringent standards than the new breed of super reliable big fans. I just don't get the concern. When I start seeing your average 2 engined jet which incurs high cycles having total engine failure's, then maybe I'll start to be concerned (remembering they are a generation earlier design).
Finally, the GE90 operators such as Air France, Continental, Lauda have had good results with their engines and aircraft and I seriously doubt anyone on this forum has the standing to second guess them. British Airways picked GE (I believe) due to a sweetheart deal in which GE bought their engine overhaul facility. That deal is now done and I have no doubt that it was Rolls-Royce' top priority to get BA back in the fold and therefore were offered yet another sweetheart deal for the Trent.
The 777X's are spectacular aircraft and I believe that since all of the engine models would be new (PW and GE are new designs), the point really becomes moot regarding a new engine type. You just can't swap parts or engines between 777ER's and 777X's (or between A340-300's & A340-500/600's or between 777's and A340-500/600's!!!!!!). I have yet to hear what I consider to be a valid argument against the decision by Boeing. To the contrary, GE investing a lot of money in the 777X is not really different than Airbus looking for risk sharing partners for it's A3XX.


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Thank you Navion. I had raised your same points in a previous post. All these people are slamming GE90s and no one has offered a single shred of evidence to support their claims of poor performance. I've asked once and I'll ask again- does anyone have despatch records and inflight shutdown records for all three 777 manufacturers? If not, your posts are complete drivel. I also prefer RRs, but don't you think that RR spin docters would have really played up the BA switch as evidence of crappy GE performance? Is it not also possible that the UK gov't heavily pressured BA to bring some of the business back home? Let's look at all the possibilities people. Furthermore, I just read the latest issue of Flight Int'l myself and to the best of my recolection, the article did not say airlines were already complaining. The author merely suggested that some MIGHT complain.



I don't like the Boeing/GE exclusivity either, but if Boeing is looking for added selling muscle, what a great choice. GE is a knight in shining armor for many smaller countries that are also big customers/potential customers for the 777. Look at all the side deals GE could sweeten to gain sales for this new engine type- technology swaps, manufacturing plants, financing, leasing through IFLC etc etc. This is the most powerful and sucessful industrial conglomerate in the world and countries like Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia surely covet the massive investment flow GE could bring to their home markets. Another reason for Boeing's choice?


User currently offlineGoA340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

if GE-90 is such a good engine choice why it is the least popular of the PW-RR-GE trio? (and by far)

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Don't people read posts anymore? I never said the GE90 was so good. I said I prefer the RRs. My point was about GE as a strategic partner for the 777X. The company itslef is easily the best managed in the world right now and by far the most profitable industrial manufacturer of the 1990s. That brings muscle to any sales effort. And A340, where are the stats and facts? Don't accuse without proof, which in this case is despatch reliability and inflight shutdown numbers. I'm not defending the GE90, I'm defending the concept of meaningful debate.

To MAC and others- I stand corrected. The Flight Int'l issue did apparently state that airlines were complaining already. Look for Reuters articles today on BritAirways and RR. Let's hope for the best. Go RR and their new swept fanblade technology!

A final point- in keeping with my nature of not taking anything at face value. Is this a great PR stunt by Boeing to guage actual interest in the 777X? The more the airlines complain, the more they seem to indicate a serious interest in buying the plane. And don't you think RR will try to match GE's risk-sharing agreement? Boeing would then seemingly get everything it wants. Great PR for a new aircraft, an indication of airline interest, and an attractive deal with RR to match GE's. Food for thought.


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

I agree 100% with Navion and wingman.
Interesting fact. Do you know that Cathay Pacific had two (that I know of) inflight shutdowns on their RR powered A330's? The malfunction was traced to a fualty sidestep gearbox on the engines. Just goes to show that all engines can have their problems.

Dash8


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Navion

I'll be getting in touch -again- (G) with my friend in the UK who has several friends at BA Maintenance. The primary reasons shared with me for BA's switch to RR were primarily on technical grounds.

But believe whatever you want. I'll be back in touch in the next few days on this..Fair enough? (G)

You can also add to the fuel starvation list the Allegro DC-9 at Cancun a few years ago. That made the airfield "on fumes". Engine failures, well look no more than to the UAL 232 fan disk disintegration and so forth. TransAmerica did the same with a GE equipped 747 at LAS way back in the early 80s. The NTSB website has a whole catalog of incidents like this one can pour thru and read.

I saw the result of a fan disk failure on a C5A GE TF-39 engine..The aircraft had to have it's engines changed 4 seperate times! Where? Guam 1994. The Inflight emergency on the second "attempt" out from Guam back to Hawaii resulted in a heart attack to one of the passengers. They were half way over the Pacific between Guam and Hawaii, but the headwinds were too strong, and they were too heavy to land at Wake Island. So, 5 hours more to turn around heading back to Guam. It was a nightmare. The aircraft in question, a New York Air Guard C-5A from the 105th Airlift Group was stuck at UAM for 2 months. Now, reproduce a similar situation with a twin engined jet in a similar circumstance. Consider all the same, weather, weight, etc.

I think what you are missing is the system redundancy that CedarJet brought up several times. It seems this all too important point is being missed. If one engine goes (and it's bound to happen..if it can happen on C-5A's or C-141s..it'll happen on these so called "super reliable" engines as well. ) Systems efficiency gets cut in half.

I cannot stress more, If anything is made with human hands, failure at some point cannot be ruled out of the question. We've gotten -far- too over confident I believe. Calcified thinking? I think not. I dont subscribe to the "Titanic being Unsinkable" school of thought.

And in reference to that CO 777 incident, I'm still at a loss how the oil level got low -that late- in the trip. They were over the Aleutian Islands or had just cleared them I believe when the failure occurred. (On a proving flight which you'd think would have everything "up to snuff" correct?) I find something a bit odd in that. A bit unbelievable.

Oil being one of the first things that is checked and changed on an aircraft, what was the quantity indicator in 777 cockpit saying on departure? And again..this isnt an early L-1011 with "steam guage dials" but one of those so called "super reliable" machines right? With a trip with such a high visibility and scrutiny as that how could they allow a low oil amount? ..I'm -very- skeptical. something is saying, "..deny..deny..deny.."

I believe a forum contributor said it well here....All it takes is -Once-.
Again..I'll be in touch with my friend in the UK and we'll get some insight into this from folks that work on these engines.

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

I recall some of you once jumping on a guy, Capt. Peter I think, for relaying information he "heard" from maintenance guys in Seattle or Canada about shoddy A340/330 quality. Your replies then were extremely harsh and included one from MAC. And now we're waiting to "hear" from MAC's "friends" at BA maintenance on shoddy GE90 quality. This smacks of serious hypocrisy. If you guys can't locate the numbers, then this is a moot point.

Secondly, everyone keeps saying that someday an engine will shutdown over water on a 777 and that will spell the end of the 777 ETOPS flights for a while. Well you're wrong guys. According to the posts here, it already happened on that CO flight and lo and behold, the 777 is still flying. I don't understand the rationale here sometimes. Some people don't even read their own posts at this point. Nobody will give a crap until the plane actually goes down. My friend who flies MD-11s for KLM tells me inside stories all the time about hairy inflight screw-ups that the public will never know about. These things don't get publicized unless people die.


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Wingman

Time out!

What you failed to notice is the difference in that argument versus this one.

I am in the process of getting detailed -facts- in order, while the former argument you are bringing up was -never- replied to so just hold "your horses" until you start throwing around the word "hypocrisy" so quick.

I asked for facts, figures, tail numbers and so forth..to which none was offered. There was no reply.

I am doing the followup on this using a point by point method, the former did -not-. You conveniently forgot that.

All that was offered was "hearsay" in that matter. It was nothing more than a sophomoric slam upon Airbus products with a wide brush swipe. Nothing further was offered, no details were offered, while I am going about getting the details for you and all to see.

Do you understand the difference? I hope so. Just to clarify a "point of order" (G) here.

Mac_Vet



User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Wingman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the posts here, it already happened on that CO flight and lo and behold, the 777 is still flying.
--------------------------------

Just to clarify something, The flight in question was during a "route proving run", as in -Without- revenue passengers aboard. Quite a -Big- difference from a normal revenue flight. Also quicker to get beyond in terms of customer relations.

I'm also grappling this sense you are only looking at this from a financial or investment perspective, rather than operational or safety perspective. The latter paragraph in your note speaks quite well of that in " it doesnt matter until someone dies".

Why does it have to come to that? I'm curious.

MAC_Vet


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

No offense, but PP1 says "a friend who has some friends". Oy Vey, this would never hold up in court. Surely these people will not be furnishing official BA stats on engine performance? That's a little risky. So unless its official, its just hearsay.

What we need here are OFFICIAL industry reports, if they exist. Inflight shutdowns must be declared with the FAA I imagine, so the numbers must be out there. As for despatch reliability, these numbers can be fudged. Besides, the real issue with the 777 is inflight shutdowns. You say at the end of your post that all it takes is one occurence. Well, what about the CO flight? There's your one occurence. So where's the public outcry? You guys aren't really talking about inflight shutdowns, you're talking about the double whammy with the plane going down nose-first just 20 miles from landfall with all souls lost. I think a 777 jet will go down due to some other catastrophe before it ever goes down due to the double whammy. Hasn't happened in forty years of commercial jet service, so why should the next forty be any different?


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

I'm just being realistic. If no one dies and the plane makes it on one engine, the press won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Headlines require death. Sounds awful, but let's not kid eachother.

I've heard inside stories about LH and AF 340s crossing the Atlantic and just start dumping fuel for no good reason. This is 3-4 years back per a pilot friend from KLM. The LH guys had to call into HQ and then Toulouse to re-program the flight systems and stop the dumping. The AF incident was something like a hold pattern that just couldn't be broken. The autopilot wanted to go in circles all day and the pilots could not get the plane out of hold. Think about a perfectly good plane just running out of gas over an an airport and the pilots are helpless to stop it. That would make me not ever want to get on an Airbus, but I do so happily because I know that there's no publicly known life-threatening defect in the plane. Shit happens, that's all. No one ever hears about stuff like this because people don't care. Everyone landed safely and got off the plane. No story.

As for the financial perspective, that's just what drives everything in this business. With the exception of Airbus of course (BG)


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3040 times:



Wingman wrote:
-------------------------------
No offense, but PP1 says "a friend who has some friends". Oy Vey, this would never hold up in court.
-------------------------------

Again, what is being investigated is not based upon "hearsay" I've asked for data as well as names in this. I think the problem here is "believability".

-------------------------------
Surely these people will not be furnishing official BA stats on engine performance? That's a little risky. So unless its official, its just hearsay.What we need here are OFFICIAL industry reports, if they exist. Inflight shutdowns must be declared with the FAA I imagine, so the numbers must be out there.
-------------------------------

These are not US registered aircraft, but British. Infligth shutdowns would most probably be handled by the UK CAA, disemmination of data and so forth may eventually wind up with the FAA or Boeing, GE, but not necessarily in public. They are not bound by the same laws like the "Freedom of Information Act" laws that the US has.

--------------------------------
As for despatch reliability, these numbers can be fudged.

They can be, but for how long?

--------------------------------
Besides, the real issue with the 777 is inflight shutdowns. You say at the end of your post that all it takes is one occurence.
--------------------------------

I should clarify something here..."Once" as in a fatal accident or very serious incident. Not an inflight shutdown. I think the wires are getting crossed here.
And granted, had that CO flight been a revenue flight, the media would have probably covered it more than the exposure it got.

--------------------------------
you're talking about the double whammy with the plane going down nose-first just 20 miles from landfall with all souls lost. I think a 777 jet will go down due to some other catastrophe before it ever goes down due to the double whammy. Hasn't happened in forty years of commercial jet service, so why should the next forty be any different?
--------------------------------

Ahh...not according to the following source. I'm looking up the Aviation-Safety database at http://www.aviation-safety.net
.
I will present several categories here:

The First being "Ditchings into water":

-Three- ditchings with Western built jet equipment with fatalities are of note with a gaggle of turboprop and reciprocating engine aircraft.

One of the following was the 767-200 off the Comoros Islands. Granted that was a hijacking situation and the control of the aircraft was in the hands of hijackers.
This accident is listed here for completeness.

Three ditchings at sea involving fatalities:
----------------------------------------------------
# 20) 02.05.70 (15.49 EST) McDonnell Douglas DC- 9-33CF
N935F (47407/457) ALM - Antillean Airlines
[year built: 1969]
occupants: 6 crew + 57 passengers = 63.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 1 crew + 22 passengers = 23.
Descent
location: St.Croix; 30mls ENE off (USA)
flight New York-John F. Kennedy IAP, NY - Philipsburg-Prinses Juliana Flightnr.: 980
Diverted to St.Croix after 3 missed approaches to St.Maarten; ran out of fuel; ditched. CAUSE: Fuel exhaution.

-------------------------------------------------
# 60) 11.09.90 (ca 15.30) Boeing 727-247
OB-1303 (20266/760) Faucett
[year built: 1969]
occupants: 3 crew + 15 passengers = 18.
Ferry
fatalities: 3 crew + 15 passengers = 18.
Cruise
location: Newfoundland; 180mls SE off (Canada)
flight Reykjav¡k-Keflav¡k IAP -
The Boeing 727 was ferried back from Malta to Peru after having been leased to Air Malta. The aircraft had left Keflavik for Gander, when at 15.20 a distress message was received by the crew of TWA flight 851 and American 35. The Faucett crew were descending through FL100 with the low fuel light on. The were preparing to ditch. Nothing more was heard from the flight.
Source: AW&ST 17.9.90 (42)

------------------------------------------------------------

# 65) 23.11.96 (12.15 UTC) Boeing 767-260ER
ET-AIZ (23916/187) Ethiopian Airlines [year built: 1987] occupants: 12 crew + 163 passengers = 175.
Scheduled Passenger fatalities: 6 crew + 119 passengers = 125.
Final Approach
location: Comoro Islands; off (Comores)
flight Addis Ababa-Bole IAP - Nairobi-Wilson APT Flightnr.: 961
Flight ET961 had taken off from Addis Ababa for a flight to Abidjan via Nairobi, Brazzaville and Lagos. Shortly after entering Kenyan
airspace 3 men seized the aircraft and demanded to be flown to Australia. Approaching the Comoros Islands the aircraft began to run out
of fuel. The pilot attempted to carry out a controlled ditching in the shallow, sheltered waters 500m off Le Galawa Beach. The left engine
and wingtip struck the water, causing the aircraft to break up and crash.
Source: CNN; ICAO Adrep Summary 1/97 (#27)
CNN - Bizarre ordeal recounted in Ethiopian Airlines crash - Nov. 24, 1996
CNN - Honeymooners capture dramatic images of Ethiopian jet crash - Nov. 26, 1996
QuickTime Movie - crash filmed by tourists at CNN
QuickTime Movie (896Kb) - wreckage just offshore at CNN
----------------------------------------------------------


Next Category is Engine Failure:

The first one mentioned is an interesting one as it occurred over land, the United DC-8 at Portland, Oregon. It is included here to give an idea of a fuel starvation problem that can bring down a 4 engined airliner as well.

Another poignant example of fuel starvation was the Avianca 707 on Long Island just a few years ago, at the end of a very long flight from Colombia.

------------------------------------------------------------------
# 30) 28.12.78 (18.15 PST) McDonnell Douglas DC- 8-61
N8082U (45972/357) United Air Lines

occupants: 8 crew + 181 passengers = 189.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 2 crew + 8 passengers = 10.
Initial Approach
location: Portland; 10km (USA)
flight - Portland IAP Flightnr.: UA173
While approaching Portland, there appeared to be a problem with the extension of the landing gear. The DC-8 circeled for about an hour
while the crew were busy trying to solve the problem. After running out of fuel, a forced landing was carried out in a wooded, populated
area. PROBABLE CAUSE: Failure of the captain to monitor properly the aircraft't fuel state and properly respond to the low fuel state
and the crew member's advisories regarding fuel state. This resulted in fuel exhaustion to all 4 engines. The inattention resulted from
preoccupation with landing gear malfunction and preparations for a possible emergency landing.
Source: NTSB Safety Recommendations A-79-33 + A-81-14
---------------------------------------------------------------------
# 42) 13.12.88 (21.50) Boeing 707-351C
5N-AYJ (19168/508) GAS Air Nigeria
[year built: 1966]
occupants: 5 crew + 3 passengers = 8.
Freight
fatalities: 5 crew + 3 passengers = 8.
Descent/Landing
3rd party fatalities: 1
location: Kom-Omran (Egypt)
flight Dar-es-Salaam - Cairo IAP
After two missed approaches at Cairo (at 20.53h and 21.07h) in 400m visibility, the crew decided to divert to Luxor. The aircraft
crashed into a residential area. The aircraft presumably ran out of fuel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
# 43) 03.09.89 (20.45) Boeing 737-241
PP-VMK (21006/398) Varig
[year built: 1975]
occupants: 6 crew + 48 passengers = 54.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 0 crew + 13 passengers = 13.
Cruise
location: Sao Jos‚ de Xingu; 60km (Brazil)
flight Maraba - Belem Flightnr.: 254
Flight RG 254 took off from Marab… at 17.25h for the last leg of the Sao Paulo - Marab… - B‚lem flight. By accident the pilot entered
a 270 deg heading into the flight computer, instead of 027deg. At about 20.45h the aircraft had to make a forced landing in the jungle due to fuel exhaustion. The aircraft was located two days later. The heading mistake went unnoticed bacause the crew was reportedly listening to to World Cup qualification football match Brazil - Chile.
Source: ICAO Adrep Summary 5/89 #11
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# 45) 25.01.90 (21.34 EST) Boeing 707-321B
HK-2016 (19276/592) Avianca
[year built: 1967]
occupants: 9 crew + 149 passengers = 158.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 8 crew + 65 passengers = 73.
Initial Approach
location: Cove Neck, NY (USA)
flight Medellin-Olaya Herrera APT - New York-John F. Kennedy IAP Flightnr.: 052 Avianca Flight AV052 (Bogota - Medellin - New York-JFK) took off from Medellin shortly after 15.00h with approx. 81000lb of fuel on board When arriving near New York, the aircraft had to enter 3 holding patterns. The first for 12-16 mins over Norfolk, the second for 27mins over new Jersey, and the third pattern over CAMRN for 46mins. At that moment the Avianca crew advised ATC that they could only hold for 5 more minutes and that their alternate Boston couldn't be reached anymore due to the low state of fuel. New York
TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control) guided AV052 to Runway 22L ILS. Due to the bad weather (300ft ceiling, 400m visibility, RVR - Runway Visual Range of 2400ft and wind shear of ca. 10kt) the crew had to carry out a missed approach. During the go-around, at 12mls SE of JFK Airport, 2 of the 4 Pratt & Whitney JT3D-3B engines ran down. Shortly afterwards followed by the
remaining two. At 21.34h, heading 250ø and flaps at 14ø and gear up, the aircraft crashed into some trees on a hill.
Source: AW&ST 2.4.1990 (52-53); NTSB/AAR-91/04 Source: FI
CVR transcript 25.01.1990 Avianca B707 Cove Neck
---------------------------------------------------------

# 50) 26.06.91 BAC One-Eleven 402AP
5N-AOW (094) Okada Air
[year built: 1967]
occupants: 3 crew + 52 passengers = 55.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 0 crew + 3 passengers = 3.
Landing
location: Sokotu; 10km (Nigeria)
flight Benin -
Flying from Benin City to Kano, the One-Eleven had to divert to Sokoto due ti heavy rainfall at Kano. Sokoto Airport also closed due to
bad weather conditions. After circling for about one hour a forced landing had to be made due to fuel shortage.
-------------------------------------------------
# 58) 15.11.93 (08.25) Airbus A.300B2-101
VT-EDV (034) Indian Airlines
[year built: 1976]
occupants: 13 crew + 250 passengers = 263.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 0 crew + 0 passengers = 0.
Landing
location: Tirupati; nr (India)
flight Madras - Hyderabad-Begumpet
After a missed apporach to Hyderabad in thick fog, the crew weren't able to retract the flaps. It was decided to fly back to Madras at
FL160 with flaps extended. A forced landing had to be made 186nm SE of Hyderabad due to fuel exhaustion. During the forced landing
in paddy fields, the nosegear collapsed.
Source: S174+176+177; FI 19-25.1.94(50); IATA 1993 review
---------------------------------------------------------------------
# 60) 18.09.94 (08.07) BAC One-Eleven 515FB
5N-IMO (229) Oriental Airlines
[year built: 1970]
occupants: 7 crew + 32 passengers = 39.
Non Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 4 crew + 30 passengers = 34.
Final Approach
location: Tamanrasset; nr (Algeria)
flight Tunis-Carthage APT -
The 1-11 was chartered to fly the Nigerian football team Iwuanwanyu from Tunis back to Lagos after a match for the Africa Cup. The
aircraft circeled 1 hour and 23mins and aborted 4 approaches to Tamarasset. The aircraft ran out of fuel, struck a lightpole and crashed
onto the airport in bad visibility. Other sources say just 2 crew + 2 pax were killed.
Source: Videotext; BRTN TT (18.9)+S185; ICAO Adrep Summary 1/95 (#73)
--------------------------------------------------

Here's the Allegro DC-9 accident, they were -very- lucky no one was killed in this one.


# 69) 14.05.96 McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15
XA-SNR (45699/8) Allegro Airlines
[year built: 1965]
occupants: 4 crew + 42 passengers = 46.
Non Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 0 crew + 0 passengers = 0.
Landing
location: Tampico-Gen. Fransisco J. Mina IAP (Mexico)
flight Orlando IAP, FL - Cancun IAP Flightnr.: 401
The DC-9 had strayed some 300mls off course on a flight from Orlando to Cancun. Because the aircraft was low on fuel, the crew chose
to divert to Tampico. But when the aircraft was 65mls out of Tampico, both engines flamed out. When on finals for Runway 31, the gear
was lowered. The sudden drag caused higher rate of descent and resulted in the aircraft touching down 300m short of the runway. The
nosegear and right maingear collapsed when the aircraft struck concrete plinths of the approach lights.
Source: ASW 10.06.96(6)
El Nacional
-------------------------------------------------------

OK that should surmise it well for now, but I hope you understand that there have been incidents and accidents that have involved ditching, engine problems or fuel starvation over water, as well as over land involving jet aircraft.

Regards
Mac_Vet


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

I won't even get into this one!! I can tell you which airline's 777 will be the first to go down: I will bet everyone on this forum $20 that one of Tower Air's 777's will be the first to go down (If they did indeed decide on ordering or leasing some).

FLY777UAL

fly777ual@hotmail.com


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

I would be most certainly interested in any sort of detail on these incidents if possible. Given that the carriers would probably not want to divulge this is of course a given, but if your friend could detail it out I'd be very interested.

It's reminiscent in some manners of how the pilot of UAL 232 had to call company dispatch and then relay that to their SFO maintenance base on how to handle an engine disintegration that knocks out the hydraulics. To which none had ever been anticipated by MDD in the "users guide" (G) or UAL maintenance I believe. Fortunately there was a senior DC-10 pilot aboard who had experience with controlling the airplane using the engine thrust. Had it not been for all of those folks up in that cockpit it would have been far worse.

Rgds
Mac_vet


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Here is one further accident report to peruse, that involving an uncommanded thrust reverser deployment on a 767-300.


# 9) 26.05.91 (23.31) Boeing 767-3Z9ER
OE-LAV (24628/283) Lauda Air
[year built: 1989]
occupants: 10 crew + 213 passengers = 223.
Scheduled Passenger
fatalities: 10 crew + 213 passengers = 223.
Climb
location: Phu Khao Kao Chan (Thailand)
flight Bangkok IAP - Wien-Schwechat APT Flightnr.: 004
total airframe flying hours: 7429; 1132 cycles
Lauda Air Flight NG004 (Hong Kong - Bangkok - Vienna) took off from Bangkok at around 23:10h for it's 1132nd flight (and 7429th
flying hour). Twelve minutes after take-off, the crew got a visual REV ISLN advisory warning. It indicated that 'an additional system
failure might cause in- flight deployment ...' of the No.1 engine (Pratt & Whitney PW4060) thrust reverser. The crew didn't take
immediate action, since the 767 Emergency/Malfunction Checklist said 'No action required'. Nine minutes later, shortly before reaching
FL310, the No.1 thrust reverser deployed. The Boeing (named 'Mozart') stalled and crashed out of control. The aircraft disintgrated at
2000m; the fuselage crashed in the jungle at a 45ø angle and exploded. One of the aircraft's wings was found 19km and the cockpit
1,5km from the main crash site. PROBALE CAUSE: "The Accident Investigation Committee of the Government of Thailand determines
the probable cause of this accident to be uncommanded in-flight deployment of the left engine thrust reverser, which resulted in loss of
flight path control. The specific cause of the thrust reverser deployment has not been positively identified."
Source: AW&ST 03.06.1991 (32), 10.06.91 (28-30)

CVR transcript 26.05.1991 Lauda B767 near Bangkok
-----------------------------------------

What was so eerily similar of this accident was the fatal crash of a C-5A on takeoff at Ramstein Air Base in Germany under very similar circumstances. This occurred in September 1990 during the Desert Shield buildup in the Persian Gulf region. It was a Travis AFB 60th MAW aircraft flown by a Kelly AFB, TX AFRES crew. Friends of mine lost friends on this one. One of the engines thrust revereser was "stuck" in -deployed- mode after a short test of the reversers prior to departure, per their pre-departure checklists. The aircraft taxied onto the runway and applied takeoff thrust, the aircraft cartwheeled as it approached VR or shortly after VR and exploded.

After this incident, the thrust reversers were investigated and Air Force wide restrictions on pre-flight testing of them were implemented. Not exactly sure what ever became of the final fix to the problem.

Regds
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (14 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

FLY77UAL

Go visit the TowerAir parody site at: http://www.idemandloyalty.com
(G) It's a hoot on one side, scary on the other. I recommend taking the "Employee test" and "meeting the management".(G)

Regards

MAC-Vet


25 FLY777UAL : LMAO!! That was GREAT!! I especially like the questionnaire about "What's the solution to passenger rage?"...choice number one: cattle prods (hehe)...
26 MAC_Veteran : Hehehehehe Glad you like that site..the first time I visted it I fell off my chair here. It's a riot (in a literal sense (G) to visit at). As for your
27 Boeing757/767 : OK, some facts. According to the Boeing Blue Book, which rates engine reliability, the most recent in-flight shutdown rates are as following for the 7
28 Wingman : Halleluja to the last post. This is all we needed from the start. Where is this Blue Book found? Any internet address?Mac, I'll make sure to check out
29 MAC_Veteran : Wingman I thought I'd add something about Tower Air. If you have any friends in the aircraft services business like Hudson General or Signature ..ask
30 CX747 : While I don't think the engine exclusivity deal is the best thing going, it really won't affect the 777. The reall sales for the 777 lie in the 200 an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Congrats To Boeing And GE On The 1 Year 773ER Anni posted Wed May 11 2005 18:30:52 by BoeingBus
GE Capital Confirms Order For Boeing 777 And 737 posted Thu Oct 5 2000 05:51:17 by Boeing747-400
Boeing Chose GE-90 Because Of Noise posted Tue Jul 27 1999 21:18:55 by GoA340
Visiting Boeing--Everett And BFI Photo Suggestions posted Tue Oct 10 2006 22:52:12 by SafetyDude
Qatar Airways And GE. posted Tue Sep 26 2006 20:20:53 by BOE773
Bieng And GE Validate 747-8 Quiet Technologies posted Wed Sep 20 2006 21:34:55 by 777ER
If The MD-11 And MD-90 Succeeded... posted Thu Aug 31 2006 01:43:09 by 1337Delta764
Why GE-90 posted Sun May 7 2006 18:20:03 by FL370
Difference In 80's Airline Food And Late 90's-00's posted Tue Feb 14 2006 04:45:33 by TheFlyGuy2
Pan Am At CVG/late 80's And Early 90's posted Mon Feb 13 2006 06:49:23 by ZChannel