SashA From Russia, joined May 1999, 868 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14934 times:
Does that make a second emergency landing for AF B 777 in a Russian airport? As I recall in Dec 2005 an AF B777 had to land in Irkutsk, also coz of an engine shutdown (or the crew had to shut it down..?). That time it was reported the replacement engine had to be shipped and fitted right there at Irkutsk.
A380BWI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 days ago) and read 14052 times:
Quoting AirGabon (Reply 1): Apparently in-flight engine failure. Landed with 1 engine. I think it was a B777-300ER with 304 pax.
MOSCOW: A Boeing 777 flying from Beijing to Paris was forced to make an emergency landing in the Russian city of Saint Petersburg on Sunday, Russian news agencies reported.
The aircraft had to land after the failure of its left engine, the three main Russian news agencies reported. News agencies said 304 people were aboard and that there were no casualties.
The twin-engine Boeing was operated by Air France, ITAR-TASS quoted an unidentified representative at Saint PetersburgÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Pulkovo Airport as saying. Airport officials and the cityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Emergency Situations Ministry could not be immediately reached for comment.Ã¢â‚¬â€AFP
Its great to read that everyone onboard was safe and sound.
Jawed From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13298 times:
The first response here, of course, is always "Oh, it's just those journalists who don't know anything about aviation, trying to create a sensational story". But if you ask me, in-flight engine failure of a 777 is a big event. I don't think it has happened very often, and when it does, it's pretty significant.
Wowpeter From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2006, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13114 times:
I think for a 2 Engine aircraft losing 1 Engine, it is a requirements to declare emergency. But for a 4 engine aircraft losing 1 engine, only a PANPAN call is required (although, the pilot could declear emergency if they feels the need to do so). It never hurts to declear MAYDAY if you have a problem (like engine failure and you've got all the support team on the ground ready if it is a MAYDAY call but not necessary for a PANPAN call) and downgrade it later after everything is under control (ie: no fire, etc).
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 4168 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12836 times:
Quoting Jawed (Reply 12): But if you ask me, in-flight engine failure of a 777 is a big event.
It is a 'big event', but only for the airline and concerned manufacturers as they'll need to investigate what happened.
Safety-wise, it's pretty benign, and yes, journalist always overemphasize these incident into near-catastrophic events because: 1/ they don't know anything about aviation (most people don't) and to them, 'emergency' means life threatening situation, even though it often is not, and 2/ It sells, as this excerpt A380BWI used shows:
Quoting A380BWI (Reply 9): News agencies said 304 people were aboard and that there were no casualties.
Quoting A380BWI (Reply 9): Emergency Situations Ministry could not be immediately reached for comment
No casualties? Emergency Situation Ministry? For an enroute engine failure? Now if that's not exaggeration, I don't know what is. A road bus that blows a tire on the highway is a much more dangerous scenario for passengers than that, yet you never hear about it on the news.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
JMO-777 From Germany, joined Apr 2002, 501 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8606 times:
Quoting Milan320 (Reply 16): Quoting Raggi (Reply 3):
AFAIK, the GE90-115B fleet has not had an IFSD while in commercial service until this one now; if the ac in question is confirmed to be a 77W it'll be the first.
So what type was on the B777 during IFSD and subsequent landing last year in Irkutsk, Russia?'
That was an AF B777-200ER (GE90-94B) which was stuck in Irkutsk.
~~~ Fly with a Triple Seven and you feel like in heaven ~~~
Catdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5993 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 15): Aircraft involved was F-GSQE and the flight arrived back in Paris at 3am, or almost 10 hours behind schedule.
Did this aircraft continue the flight or was a subtitute flown in? If it was the same aircraft it would likely have been a faulty indication requiring the crew to shut down or reduce power wouldn't it?
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2239 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5904 times:
Quoting A380BWI (Reply 9): Its great to read that everyone onboard was safe and sound.
Twins with ETOPS are engineered to land safely with one engine, as long as they land within the ETOPS time restrictions, which is always the case if the routes are planned appropriately. So there is virtually no reason why anyone could have been hurt (besides pax freaking out...).
PYP757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5790 times:
Quoting 797 (Reply 10): Being an aircraft completely able to fly with one engine, is this considered an emergency landing?
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 14): Safety-wise, it's pretty benign, and yes, journalist always overemphasize these incident into near-catastrophic events because: 1/ they don't know anything about aviation (most people don't) and to them, 'emergency' means life threatening situation, even though it often is not, and 2/ It sells, as this excerpt A380BWI used shows:
Yes, the 777 is designed to fly with one engine only, but in order to survive engine failure it needs to have 2 running engines to start with! Failure of the second engine would turn it into a glider, which I don't think the 777 was designed to be! And yes, before you tell me that statistically a dual flame-out is statistically virtually impossible, accident and incident databases show that this has happened quite a few times in the past, whether due to volcanic ash, water or ice ingestion, or fuel deprivation. So unless the pilots here could be absolutely certain that the cause of the engine failure was not one that could affect both engines simultaneously, surely this situation had to be considered an emergency. Anyway, I find it too easy to dismiss this kind of incidents as minor, while seating safely on the ground! I have never experienced an engine failure in the air, but I know that if it were to happen I would be quite scared, even with all the knowledge about aviation I have acquired over the years.
JetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2705 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5684 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 19): Twins with ETOPS are engineered to land safely with one engine, as long as they land within the ETOPS time restrictions,
The ability for a twin to land safely on one engine is not exclusive to twins that are ETOP's certified. The ability to land on one engine is a certification requirement from the beginning, and is separate from ETOP's certification. Even if a twin loses one engine, the maximum distance it can fly depends on the remaining fuel load. The ETOP's time restriction is merely the maximum flying time the aircraft can be away from a suitable diversion airport. The remaining engine will continue to run as long as there is fuel, even if this time limit is exceeded.
[Edited 2007-11-26 10:48:43]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
Clearly not just a simple engine shut down. With debris hitting the horizontal stabilizer and maybe other parts of the plane, this shows that this kind of incident has the potential of developping into an real emergency. One reason why I cannot understand that people are so dismissive of this kind of events and accuse everyone of overreacting. I for one would rather be in a car blowing a tyre on the highway (happened to me before) than in a plane suffering this kind of engine failure at 35,000 feet in the air.
: It would probably take some double failure of twins on 207minute ETOPS somewhere in the Pacific to voice the call for tri-engine design... Lets face i
: I would think so. IIRC ETOPS regulations require that the plane be landed ASAP.
: Any news on what is happening with this bird? Still stuck at Pulkovo?