Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NZ8 Returns Back To AKL  
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9081 times:

Almost the longest overwater flight by a single engine 777......

from http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=379468&catid=0

"The choice was made to return to New Zealand because that is where the airline's engineering base is."

hmmmmmmmmmm........"engineering base" twin, etops....."turned back after about five hours".....AKL-SFO


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25852 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9064 times:

The news article does not say that the engine was actually shut down. If it was, I assume they would have been required to divert to a closer alternate airport under ETOPS rules which do not permit flying for 5 hours on one engine.

User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9050 times:

5 hours out, and possibly more than 5 hours back as i would expect them to be flying at a slower pace.

10 hours flying at least. Looks like it is a 12hr flight normally.

Does QF or UA have engine maintenance in LAX for a diversion there?

Or is it simply a case of it was more efficent to return to AKL and restart from there than to head anywhere else?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9021 times:

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 2):
Or is it simply a case of it was more efficent to return to AKL and restart from there than to head anywhere else?

Don't know, but HNL would have been about 3 hrs away from the diversion point, 2 hrs closer.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineVHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8825 times:

Already posted in the NZ thread
New Zealand Aviation Thread #7 (by Zkpilot Jun 20 2007 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8701 times:

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 4):
Already posted in the NZ thread
New Zealand Aviation Thread #7 (by Zkpilot Jun 20 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Think they are different incidents, the one you posted was a bird strike shortly after takeoff, this one is 5 hrs after takeoff. The post by SunriseValley was 3 hrs after this thread was started.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8456 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

It wasn't diverted elsewhere due to limited engineering resource on the ground. We have more capability with the aircraft in AKL, and the right decision was made.

NZ1


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6451 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8342 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
Think they are different incidents, the one you posted was a bird strike shortly after takeoff,

The bird strike happened on the same day as the Beech incident, which was last week. There is one post at the very bottom of the thread, but not in depth.

[Edited 2007-06-25 13:23:55]


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8298 times:

A ten hour flight to nowhere (5hours outbound, problem, 5 hours return)....that sucks for the passengers. The flight was likely almost half-way to SFO and then turned back to AKL.....seems very odd to me. If there was a true need to divert, there were places to land the airplane without flying 5 hours back to AKL (think ETOPS rules) and if it was nothing more than a minor problem, why didnt the flight continue to SFO?

I, for one, hope to hear more about this story......ANZ is a good carrier, one of my favorites and an expert in longroutes accross the Pacific, I would like to hear their reasoning concerning sending the flight on a 10 hour flight to nowhere.

Thank goodness it wasnt a US carrier, this thread would have 900 posts and class action law suits would be planned (think CO's trouble on the AMS-EWR flight a few week ago and the reaction that brought).

Regards.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8082 times:

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 6):
It wasn't diverted elsewhere due to limited engineering resource on the ground. We have more capability with the aircraft in AKL, and the right decision was made.

Maybe NZ does not have engineering capabilities is HNL, but other airlines have, they have more engineering experience with 777s there at HNL than NZ ever had.

I see that this was a commercial decision to protect the passengers onto the next NZ service to SFO. If they had diverted to the closer HNL, the aircraft would have to fly empty back to AKL/SFO, and the passengers placed on other carriers flights from HNL.

To me the decision making seems operationally flawed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7941 times:

Unless AKL-SFO is operated exclusively by a 777, I don't see anywhere in that article that the flight was operated by one. Supposing a 744 was dispatched? The auther said a problem in "one of the engines", not "one of its two engines".


Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7904 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
To me the decision making seems operationally flawed.

No where has it been suggested that the engine was shut down . No doubt the possibility of an engine removal was a possibility when the in-flight condition was being considered by the people on the ground. Given that the engine was still operating it was a reasonable decision to return the aircraft to AKL where the spare engines are located.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7894 times:

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 10):
Unless AKL-SFO is operated exclusively by a 777

NZ8 is a daily 777, except for the day after this event I am told they operated a 744 for the load.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 11):
No doubt the possibility of an engine removal was a possibility when the in-flight condition was being considered by the people on the ground. Given that the engine was still operating it was a reasonable decision to return the aircraft to AKL where the spare engines are located.

Do you see the irony in the two sentences....what would cause high vibration levels that one needs to remove an engine from an aircraft ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7829 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
Do you see the irony in the two sentences

Zeke; I assume the definition that you are using of irony in this instance is something like the following....
"incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs".
If so, so be it. I find it more interesting that of the 16 Trents in service on NZ's 772's two have been removed in what I would consider early in their lifespan, one from -OKA at about 3-months and one from -OKH at about 6-months. Is this statistically about normal?


User currently offlineTeamspeedy From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7736 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):

NZ8 is a daily 777, except for the day after this event I am told they operated a 744 for the load.

Monday's return NZ7 flight which i was on left at 2:45am instead of instead of 9:15pm as it arrived late and the crew needed rest and it was a 777



Flown on 727,747-200,747-400,757,777,A320,DC10,DC9.MD-80,SB340,CRJ-200,A380
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7723 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13):
Is this statistically about normal?

It is with the number of birds they are ingesting ...



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7703 times:

Question: Is there any way to transport a 777 engine on another aircraft type, some of the 747 series have a way to attach a 5th engine on the inside of the #2 engine? or is the 777 engine too large for that to work? Can another 777 do this?

I fully understand that ANZ will have its main tech base in AKL, but doing a what if scenario.... if the flight that this happened to was say Hong Kong to LHR the option of returning to AKL isn't there, what would they do in that scenario? How would it have been handled if this flight was say 2 hours from SFO in which case a turn around wasn't a choice.

Just looking for a better understanding on how these decisions are made.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
It is with the number of birds they are ingesting ...

This could be so if in the case of -OKA it results in metal in the oil and in the case of -OKH , bearing problems.  scratchchin 


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 17):

This could be so if in the case of -OKA it results in metal in the oil and in the case of -OKH , bearing problems.

Mix engine oils you can get that ..... it only takes one tin by accident.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Hi Dutchjet ... "a 10 hour flight to nowhere ... that sucks for the pax" .... you need to remember what ETOPS really stands for , and that is : Engines Turn Or People Swim.

IMHO, a 5 hour return to AKL followed by a complementary night in a hotel bed, sucks far less than (maybe, if they're lucky) sitting in a life raft mid-Pacific waiting to be rescued by someone's Navy. I know that would be my preference!

Cheers, Airbear


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7535 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
Mix engine oils you can get that ..... it only takes one tin by accident.

Doesn't surprise me. I remember back in NZ's DC6B days, a change in brand of engine oil resulted in a number of premature engine removals.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7462 times:

Quoting Airbear (Reply 19):
Hi Dutchjet ... "a 10 hour flight to nowhere ... that sucks for the pax" .... you need to remember what ETOPS really stands for , and that is : Engines Turn Or People Swim.

IMHO, a 5 hour return to AKL followed by a complementary night in a hotel bed, sucks far less than (maybe, if they're lucky) sitting in a life raft mid-Pacific waiting to be rescued by someone's Navy. I know that would be my preference!

Cheers, Airbear

They flew 5 hours over the pacific to a certain point and then turned back to fly another 5 hours over the pacific back to Auckland......does that make a lot of sense to you? After the engine issue was reported, the ""lucky"" pax had a 5 hour flight OVER WATER back to their point of origin. If there was really a problem, get the airplane on the ground as soon as possible, as required by ETOPS, and if there was not a critical issue (which I assume that there was not) get the passengers to the destination or make arrangments for them to get to their destination quickly. And, a 5 hour diversion back to AKL over water indicates that there was no engine shutdown.

If there was really a chance of the airplane making a water landing......why did they fly back to AKL? Please dont overdramaztize this. And, I am sure that the pax wanted to get to SFO, not enjoy a complementery bednight at AKL.

The subject engine needed some servicing....and NZ brought the airplane back to AKL instead of having to deal with it (and the expense of dealing with it) at SFO....thats what really happened here I suspect.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5145 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7430 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 21):
And, a 5 hour diversion back to AKL over water indicates that there was no engine shutdown.

You make it sound much worse than it was in reality. The return route flies right over Samoa and not too far from Raratonga either of which could have been used had the engine needed to be shut down. From an ETOPS view point both were probably closer than HNL. at the point of turn around.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7414 times:

Quoting Airbear (Reply 19):
Hi Dutchjet ... "a 10 hour flight to nowhere ... that sucks for the pax" .... you need to remember what ETOPS really stands for , and that is : Engines Turn Or People Swim



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 22):
You make it sound much worse than it was in reality.

Not me........I dont think that the situation was bad at all, how bad could it have been if the airplane (with whatever problem it had) could remain in the air for 5 hours and go all the way back to AKL?

Cheers....dont get me wrong, ANZ is one of my favorite carriers (I have always found their service superb) and that is why I dont really understand the subject situation.


User currently offlineAirbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

Hi again, Dutchjet. Your comments noted. Given that the incident was obviously not an immediate emergency situation, I am sure - and believe it is perfectly valid - that NZ would seek a commercially "best solution".

Thinking about it though, two things come to mind. 1) given that NZ's 772's operate RR Trents, is it possible that there might have been servicing problems or even warranty issues, if they had gone into HNL. After all, UA's 772's are P&W engined, and OK... AA's 772's are RR's, but I don't think AA operate their 772's into HNL, so there may not have been the service facilities. 2) Looking at the logistics of a (non-emergency) diversion to HNL, they would have landed there at some ungodly hour of the early morning. It could have taken a very long time indeed, to get all 200 or so pax through customs, and then either settled into hotels, or an even longer wait to get them all onto flights to SFO or elsewhere. Thinking about it, there may not have been that much of a time difference between such a diversion to HNL, and going back to AKL, staying there, and then flying all the way back. The AKL option in this case seems to me to be far easier.

Airbear


25 BuckFifty : The whole point of contention is this: how bad was the situation with the engine? If it was standard twin engine ops, and one engine was inop, the air
26 NZ1 : The engine was actually replaced when it arrived in AKL due to contamination of the oil with bearing material. The engine was NOT shut down, but oper
27 N1120A : United has a large MX base at LAX and QF a smaller one.
28 Eta unknown : I'm wondering if the AKL-SFO route overflies RAR/PPT rather than HNL (like AKL-LAX). If that's the case. HNL wasn't really an option and PPT/RAR prese
29 XXXX10 : Although we don't know all the facts I would be concerned if the crew had needed to shut down the 'good' engine-perhaps for a totally unrelated reason
30 Zeke : You have actually implied that it flew not to the closest, and also past two suitable aerodromes on the return trip. You have actually painted a wors
31 Viscount724 : I would feel more comfortable on that NZ 777 for 5 hours with both engines running, even with one at a reducd power setting, and within range of at l
32 Zeke : You would feel less comfortable on an engine that was shut down that was making metal, over an engine that was shut down because it making metal ? In
33 Jbernie : anyone? Bueller? Bueller? If the only way is to do it via Cargo jet then I can very easily understand the decision, it would make for a logistics nig
34 ZK-NBT : Yes the only way to transport a 777 engine is by Freighter. In an emergency NZ would have diverted to the nearest airport.
35 Nzrich : AKL would of been closer than LAX .. .. AKL-LAX being 12hr 10 min in a 744 thats over 7 hours flying to go .. Also for the 5 hour journey back to AKL
36 BuckFifty : The whole point is this. In terms of absolute safety, anytime a twin with one engine inop, you must fly to the nearest suitable airfield. But because
37 TG992 : BuckFifty - what are your qualifications for questioning the judgement of two pilots with 25 years plus of experience? And what information are you pr
38 Dutchjet : Very well stated summary, thanks. Why challenge the posters qualifications.....we are questioning the decision...the point is did NZ and its pilots m
39 TG992 : And what makes you think that the pilots would be willing to risk their lives for the company's convenience? Some posters seem to forget that the pilo
40 BuckFifty : I'm not about to go on a big post trying to justify my qualifications so that you can be satisfied. My opinions I do speak on my own behalf, and in a
41 Zeke : My calcs make it closer to a 6 hrs for return trip, the ground speed would be in the region of 80-90% of the outbound ground speed due to one engine
42 Nzrich : Ok actually i have flown this route many times from 99 till 2004 i do know how far these islands are apart .. I can tell you if safety was a priority
43 BuckFifty : When you have high vibrations, my guess right now is as good as the guess that they have on the flight deck at the time. The FADEC can tell you that
44 Nzrich : All i can say is i trust all the Air NZ pilots with my life and i do that every day i go to work .. Why because i know the guys there will always mak
45 Post contains images Cchan : It looks like this argument is based on some proposed scenarios with no facts about what the problem really was
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...
United Back To AKL posted Thu Aug 28 2003 11:39:07 by Duff
NZ 737 Returns To AKL After Take-off posted Wed Nov 9 2005 03:39:31 by Jafa39
LH Back To CPT posted Wed Jun 20 2007 18:29:58 by Stylo777
LH Back To CPT posted Wed Jun 20 2007 18:14:24 by Stylo777
Tajikistan Airlines Go Back To Abbreviated Name posted Sat Jun 9 2007 16:11:06 by 777way
May 17th DFW AA Jet Back To DFW? posted Fri Jun 1 2007 06:37:08 by Ndalsteve
A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again) Pt 2 posted Thu May 31 2007 18:18:32 by ANCFlyer
A350XWB - Back To The Drawing Board (again)? posted Tue May 29 2007 11:53:09 by N1786b
DL Back To PRG posted Fri May 4 2007 11:01:57 by PRGDLGUY
DL Mainline Back To MHT! posted Sun Apr 15 2007 03:39:47 by Funflyer