KL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6613 times:
Does KLM have engineers in JNB? Will they need a new engine? The link mentioned that engineers are flown in from JNB, but KL uses the 747 to JNB right, not the 777.
" The European consumer would crawl naked over broken glass to get low fares." Michael O'Leary
AA B777-200 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 503 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6407 times:
Quoting KL911 (Reply 1): Does KLM have engineers in JNB? Will they need a new engine? The link mentioned that engineers are flown in from JNB, but KL uses the 747 to JNB right, not the 777.
KL911.... KLM switched the KIX and JNB equipment back in March. KIX is now 747 (will become 777 by the end of October though) and JNB is now a 777 destination!
As a matter of fact, when the winter season starts (and the summer in South Africa), on some days both CPT and JNB will see the switch to the 77W!
SAA380 From South Africa, joined Mar 2008, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5935 times:
Quoting AA B777-200 (Reply 2): KL911.... KLM switched the KIX and JNB equipment back in March. KIX is now 747 (will become 777 by the end of October though) and JNB is now a 777 destination!
As a matter of fact, when the winter season starts (and the summer in South Africa), on some days both CPT and JNB will see the switch to the 77W!
Wow, I didn't know that they switched to a 77W. Is this route to JNB now served permanently
with a 777 or do they stil switch between 74 and 77?
CV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4290 times:
There is no way I would have boarded that flight I wouldn't want to be on a 300 ton glider. Surely that must be against many regulations if for no other reason than the people who are underneath.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
Quoting CV990Coronado (Reply 9): Surely that must be against many regulations if for no other reason than the people who are underneath.
Likely an engine condition which allows a ferry without pax, say a faulty alternator or some such, ferry allowed with one working, pax with two. Highly unlikely that they would fly the a/c that distance on one engine for a replacement, it would be the first 777 to do so, others which have needed engine replacements had them done in place where the diversion occured, someone had one done somewhere in Siberia, AF maybe??
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10694 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 10): Likely an engine condition which allows a ferry without pax, say a faulty alternator or some such, ferry allowed with one working, pax with two. Highly unlikely that they would fly the a/c that distance on one engine for a replacement, it would be the first 777 to do so, others which have needed engine replacements had them done in place where the diversion occured, someone had one done somewhere in Siberia, AF maybe??
Agree. But it would have to be more than an alternator.
There seems to be a compressor issue per the link. With damaged blades or 'stuck stators', its possible to still run the engine, but the maximum thrust would be reduced. An empty ferry flight would be perfectly safe with an engine limited to ~74k of thrust (would require a fuel stop on the way to AMS).
Quoting CV990Coronado (Reply 9): There is no way I would have boarded that flight
Unless you were a pilot, test engineer or f/a you wouldn't have been allowed to. At a minimum, you would have to have taken oxygen training, aircraft specific evacuation training, aircraft fire suppression training, and a few other classes.
Alphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 532 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
Quoting CV990Coronado (Reply 9): There is no way I would have boarded that flight I wouldn't want to be on a 300 ton glider. Surely that must be against many regulations if for no other reason than the people who are underneath.
Whats wrong with a glider?
They probably ferried it with the reduced power setting on the engine which needed replacement - you wouldn't (and not even sure if you could) go on just 1 engine alone, but if you can get at least 50% out of the bad engine and the aircraft is empty - no problem.
The 777 has a great ETOPS rating which would allow it to fly at 10,000ft for up to 180min from land (not a factor here - so it is obviously capable of limping back to AMS - and yes pax would not be allowed on board so no worries for you.
I believe CO and others flying pacific routes have some amazing ETOPS restrictions - somewhere around 300min I heard once - anyone know this for sure?
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3954 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3899 times:
Quoting Alphaomega (Reply 12): I believe CO and others flying pacific routes have some amazing ETOPS restrictions - somewhere around 300min I heard once - anyone know this for sure?
I don't believe any of the regularly used trans-Pacific routes exceeds 120 minutes diversion. Most are less than 90 minutes. CO's EWR-HKG route is less than 60 minutes according to Great Circle Mapper. I believe the worst city pair combination in the world does not exceed about 300 minutes.
Quoting TN486 (Reply 8):
Did they fly that distance on one engine?? Whoa!! (or is this commonplace??)
Is the 772 actually able to take-off with only one engine? I'd think that the input of rudder needed to correct the differential thrust would make it almost impossible to reach VR on a 3000m runway..
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
TN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 816 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 14): Is the 772 actually able to take-off with only one engine? I'd think that the input of rudder needed to correct the differential thrust would make it almost impossible to reach VR on a 3000m runway
I think the answer to mine and yours is here.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11): There seems to be a compressor issue per the link. With damaged blades or 'stuck stators', its possible to still run the engine, but the maximum thrust would be reduced. An empty ferry flight would be perfectly safe with an engine limited to ~74k of thrust (would require a fuel stop on the way to AMS).
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
LUPOR1D From Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 3230 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13): I don't believe any of the regularly used trans-Pacific routes exceeds 120 minutes diversion. Most are less than 90 minutes. CO's EWR-HKG route is less than 60 minutes according to Great Circle Mapper. I believe the worst city pair combination in the world does not exceed about 300 minutes.
Great circle map does not plot the actual flightplan though, so it is probably more than 60 mins
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 2935 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 14): Is the 772 actually able to take-off with only one engine? I'd think that the input of rudder needed to correct the differential thrust would make it almost impossible to reach VR on a 3000m runway..
Not with one engine at full thrust and one off (you're way below Vmcg), but if you have some thrust on the offside engine, or you ramp the thrust on the good engine to keep direction control until you've got enough speed for the rudder to work, it could be done. You'd want to be light to keep the runway distance as low as you can.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 2906 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13): I don't believe any of the regularly used trans-Pacific routes exceeds 120 minutes diversion. Most are less than 90 minutes.
I believe it's much more than 120 minutes. UA had a single-engine 777 diversion in 2003 on an AKL-LAX flight which took 192 minutes to Kona, Hawaii. I believe it was operating under the 180 minute ETOPS rule but they encountered stronger than expected headwinds wihch extended the airborne time on one engine to 192 minutes.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 503 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Mar 2008, 211 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1013 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10694 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3954 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
