Andrewtang From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 457 posts, RR: 9 Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7983 times:
This seems to be the 5th or 6th incident on the 777 for SQ this month. Although they do not all relate to engines.
According to Straits Times, this flight was flying from Singapore to Nagoya when it experienced problems on Engine 2 and it had to be shutdown inflight though
Powercube From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7942 times:
Once again, it's great news to hear everyone is okay but this rash of IFSDs is starting to get just a little out of the ordinary now that it is effecting both GE and RR powered SQ birds. I love T7s and this doesn't hurt my confidence in the airframe, but I am not the average person. I wonder what Boeing has to say about this behind closed doors.
...or is it a rash of reported/sensationalized engine issues?
I'm tempted to say the latter, as 1) this frequency of reporting really didn't "start" until after the BA incident, and 2) not all of which have even been actual IFSDs
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7859 times:
Quoting Powercube (Reply 1): I wonder what Boeing has to say about this behind closed doors.
"What the heck is wrong with SQ and why can't they keep their newest and most advanced planes working?"
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7827 times:
Well, the event itself is nothing to worry about, but what is worrying for SQ is that they are having to add another real IFSD to their ETOPS quality follow up program, which definitely isn't good news for them.
Don't know how far off the first restriction they are, but they just moved a full step closer to seeing their ETOPS restricted or even revoked with this IFSD... TG knows what happens if you are unlucky and happen to have one too many.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7819 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2): ..or is it a rash of reported/sensationalized engine issues?
I get a lot of data on Singapore Airlines' operations daily but very rarely do I see full blown tech problems that lead to AOGs. So I don't think it is media sensationalism, just a run of not positive luck.
If you average out the issues over a period of time and stretch the memory back more than three weeks then it probably does all average out though I do not have time to do any calculations.
Again, this was an unfortunate incident and I am sure SQNGO are taking care of their passengers.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7804 times:
"Officials initially said the aircraft suffered engine problems, but later said a computer glitch involving the right engine appeared to be the cause of the trouble, adding investigations were continuing."
"The cause of the incident is being investigated by engineers, and the aircraft is expected to return to service once investigations are complete and components changed," Singapore Airlines said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7700 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 5): Apart from a fuel pump failure the A380 has been doing great.
I was counting that. They can't seem to keep their 77Ws or A380s out of trouble, the two most advanced planes they fly... (and now the 772).
Nobody else is having trouble with their A380s... oh wait...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6952 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7069 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 5): Apart from a fuel pump failure the A380 has been doing great.
I hear their A345 are also doing pretty good. No IFSD's at all
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6983 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 12): I hear their A345 are also doing pretty good. No IFSD's at all
No, but they have gone tech for 24 hours or more. Happened at EWR twice IIRC...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
EMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4629 times:
Another thread is turning into an A vs B match.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): Don't know how far off the first restriction they are, but they just moved a full step closer to seeing their ETOPS restricted or even revoked with this IFSD... TG knows what happens if you are unlucky and happen to have one too many.
How many do you have to have to get your ETOPS restricted? At the current rate it won't be many weeks until that happens!
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4369 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): Don't know how far off the first restriction they are, but they just moved a full step closer to seeing their ETOPS restricted or even revoked with this IFSD... TG knows what happens if you are unlucky and happen to have one too many.
With the 777-200ER/777-300 fleets there ETOPS cert is not close to being in jeopardy. the 777-200ER fleet is 46 strong and is accumulating ETOPS hours rapidly. It would take about 20 more IFSD over the next year for them to fall out of ETOPS 180 qualification.
Their 77W fleet however can not sustain repeated events at this point. To that end GE and Boeing have both instituted additional monitoring and frequent oil analysis among the preventative measures to reduce the possibility of IFSD. Unfortunately this has led to at least one unscheduled engine removal not related to an IFSD event so far. This was not on an SQ ship.
It is quite strange that after a million basically trouble free hours there have been at least four IFSD related to HPT and gearbox related problems. GE will get things back on track as there is a huge imperative to do so.
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Plairbus From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
Mmmm i think it is time that Boeing and the Airlines make in investigacion, and do something, that is really strange, i mean what is going on with the 777?
7673mech From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
I would say that in the age of internet and real time news reporting, alot of sensationalism occurs when you have aircraft maintenance incidents.
I wish everyone would stop speculating about there ETOPS certificate coming into jeopardy. It would take a lot for that to happen.
Having worked my whole career at several "ETOPS" airlines - starting with the airline that took the first 67 ETOPS, and the same carrier later struggling to keep their 57's ETOPS qualified (thanks to mfg issue) I can tell you that it would be engine S/N and airframe based. IE - certain aircraft with certain Serial number engines would lose ETOPS authority prior to the whole fleet losing it.
Sparklehorse12 From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 869 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Quoting EMA747 (Reply 15): Another thread is turning into an A vs B match. Angry
Yes, I hope it doesn't go that way. I love the 777 and variants....that sound of them idling when you are taxi-ing out to the run way sounds very cool indeed. It seems odd that SQ are the ones having the most amount of issues
Brenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1469 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2556 times:
Quoting Sparklehorse12 (Reply 20): It seems odd that SQ are the ones having the most amount of issues
AFAIK, SQ also flies, by far, the largest fleet of them ... it's only natural that SQ would have more issues than anyone else.
The number to look at would be the number of "issues" per hour of flying time for SQ's fleet compared to other fleets. I suspect that figure would paint a very different picture.
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
Norcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1286 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2520 times:
Quoting Sparklehorse12 (Reply 20): It seems odd that SQ are the ones having the most amount of issues
Not really, AF has had more issues with the 777's than SQ.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 457 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 265 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2071 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 311 posts, 
From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1469 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
