Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KLM 777 Engine Trouble On Take Off At Cape Town  
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10364 posts, RR: 11
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13419 times:

A KLM 777 experienced engine trouble on takeoff at Cape Town on saturday. The flight had to be cancelled and a repair team flown in.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4200cecd&opt=0

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5084 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 7911 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.


Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineAA B777-200 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 505 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7705 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!


User currently offlineSAA380 From South Africa, joined Mar 2008, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7233 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?

SAA380  airplane 


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7120 times:



Quoting SAA380 (Reply 3):
Is this route to JNB now served permanently
with a 777 or do they stil switch between 74 and 77?

B772 only



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4207 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

The aircraft is flown back to AMS empty, and needs engine replacement.


"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineAA B777-200 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2001, 505 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

On Oct 30th (can only see that actual date), a 77W is scheduled to operate KL591/592 JNB.

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1466 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6039 times:



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 5):
The aircraft is flown back to AMS empty, and needs engine replacement.

They flew an airplane that needs an engine replacement from CPT to AMS?



BV
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 898 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6005 times:



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 7):
They flew an airplane that needs an engine replacement from CPT to AMS

My thoughts exactly.

Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 5):
The aircraft is flown back to AMS empty, and needs engine replacement

Did they fly that distance on one engine?? Whoa!! (or is this commonplace??)



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlineCV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5523 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??


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineAlphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5249 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?


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5197 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.


User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4666 times:



Quoting Alphaomega (Reply 12):

Whats wrong with a glider?

Good question! Big grin

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!
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 898 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4563 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
User currently offlineLUPOR1D From Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4528 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



Always lurking.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4233 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.

Tom.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4204 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.


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...
Attempted Hijacking At Cape Town posted Sat Jun 17 2006 12:34:46 by Flymad
Spotting At Johannesburg/Cape Town Advice posted Mon Feb 21 2005 12:10:33 by Soundtrack
Cape Town To San Juan DL 777 Charter posted Mon Nov 24 2003 04:03:04 by Big777jet
Emirates 777 Emergency At LHR? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 13:38:32 by VS744
AC 777 Parked At SYD posted Tue Sep 16 2008 23:32:01 by 1821
DL Cape Town - How Is It Performing? posted Sun Jul 6 2008 14:30:00 by ContinentalEWR
London To Cape Town, 1920 posted Mon Jun 16 2008 06:38:37 by Ferengi80
VS A343 Damaged In Cape Town posted Sat Apr 5 2008 13:37:10 by Leezyjet
Air France 777-200ER At Heathrow! posted Tue Apr 1 2008 08:39:02 by LuvJetFuel
Emirates Launch Cape Town Tomorrow 30/08 posted Sat Mar 29 2008 00:13:58 by Haan