Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada 777 Uncontained Engine Failure?  
User currently onlinePlainplane From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 849 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 39555 times:

CNN is reporting that Air Canada flight 1, a 777, made an emergency landing back in Toronto after an engine failure. There are reports that debris from the engine has smashed into the ground causing damage to cars and buildings and an investigation has been launched.

Here is a news story.

95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGRIVely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39465 times:

Any information on the engine maker?

User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39430 times:

Quoting GRIVely (Reply 1):
Any information on the engine maker?


All B77Ws and 77Ls are equipped with GE90s. AC has the -115 (BL) on the Ws and the -110s on the -200LRs.

KrisYYZ


User currently offlinedeclarets From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39420 times:

Quoting GRIVely (Reply 1):

They have GE Engines


User currently offlinephilipkk From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39264 times:

There are a few pics and a video report
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120528/051812_plane_debris/20120528/?hub=CP24Home


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39134 times:

Have there been previous uncontained failures of GE90'S?

User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 38935 times:

According to AC's website, AC001 is now scheduled to arrive at NRT 0536 (May 29).

Quoting philipkk (Reply 4):
There are a few pics and a video report
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local...4Home

I hope they hand those pieces over to the (C)TSB .

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1207 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 38177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This thread was started earlier:
Cyyz Runway 23 Shutdown (by kl692 May 28 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Scooter01



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3568 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37894 times:

The top piece in the photo from the CP24 website looks like a turbine blade from one of the lower stages of the engine. The bluish tinge leads me to believe it was in a high-temp area, much like the internal combustion stages.

http://geaviationservicesolutions.com/2011/01/lib/images/web/article5-image1-full.jpg



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently onlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37812 times:

An updated story from CBC. The passengers will overnight in Toronto and depart on a new flight tomorrow.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...nto-pearson-emergency-landing.html



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37738 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 8):
The top piece in the photo from the CP24 website looks like a turbine blade from one of the lower stages of the engine. The bluish tinge leads me to believe it was in a high-temp area, much like the internal combustion stages.

My initial impression was a turbine blade or blades, likely from the HP turbine, got shed and exited the back end. GE90s I believe have passed the goose test.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinevirgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37698 times:

I guess the question is how long is AC going to be down an Airplane (not to mention a valuable one) till GE can come down and scratch their heads, then finally decide on sending down a new engine to put on. Then do the actual act of replacing said engine. From experience, I can tell you being down an airplane like that is a pain in the you know what...

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7488 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37701 times:

To us non-techies, uncontained failure does that mean not contained within the engine or a puncture of the fuselage?

User currently offlinekl692 From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 37598 times:

Just got back from the airport, I have video of the A/C taxing to gate on Youtube. not the greatest video I have done but it is something. the first 10 sec is not that great

http://youtu.be/NIoYzZdYp40

[Edited 2012-05-28 17:36:58]


A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
User currently offlineB757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37365 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
To us non-techies, uncontained failure does that mean not contained within the engine or a puncture of the fuselage?

My understanding has always been that an uncontained failure would describe a situation in which parts exited the engine by puncturing through the engine case or containment ring. True uncontained failures are rare. I suspect when the analysis is done, this AC incident will be declared a contained failure, as the parts most likely exited the tailpipe.


User currently offlineYOWVIEWER From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37348 times:

Just curious, a Toronto to Narita 777 would have a full fuel load on board and this occurred just after takeoff . How would they get it back down on the ground so quickly without blowing some tires ?

User currently offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37306 times:

Great work by the flight crew bringing her back in one piece!

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 11):
I guess the question is how long is AC going to be down an Airplane (not to mention a valuable one)

This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is. This is probably going to have a ripple effect down the line, and depending on how long it's out for there might be some immediate down gauges on some flights. Fingers crossed it is just the engine, and GE/AC can get a new one in ASAP. Thankfully they got it back to YYZ, and not some small airport elsewhere.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
Uncontained failure does that mean not contained within the engine or a puncture of the fuselage?

It means that pieces have exited the engines, but it does not necessarily mean the fuselage/wings have been punctured by the expelled debris.


User currently offlinekl692 From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37207 times:

Quoting YOWVIEWER (Reply 15):
Just curious, a Toronto to Narita 777 would have a full fuel load on board and this occurred just after takeoff . How would they get it back down on the ground so quickly without blowing some tires ?

They did a fuel dump, the A/C must have return after an hour or so.



A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37063 times:

To kl692,,

Great video in real time! Quite an entourage of emergency vehicles close behind as the A/C taxis to the terminal. Both engine nacelles look intact which favors a contained failure. But we need to see the engines and fuselage close up before coming to a more definitive conclusion.

This is not the first 777 to have engine failure on/after take off. Several years ago, CO 9, EWR to NRT had an engine failure on take off and had to do an emergency return. This was a contained failure.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 37009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 8):
The bluish tinge leads me to believe it was in a high-temp area, much like the internal combustion stages.
Quoting B757forever (Reply 14):
My understanding has always been that an uncontained failure would describe a situation in which parts exited the engine by puncturing through the engine case or containment ring.

   Any parts that go out the nozzles are a 'contained failure.'

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 11):
I guess the question is how long is AC going to be down an Airplane (not to mention a valuable one) till GE can come down and scratch their heads, then finally decide on sending down a new engine to put on.

I doubt there will be a delay. The engine should already be on its way (if not half way to on the wing) with a new nacelle. The will need to pull fuel filters and sample aircraft fuel. The rest will be pulled and inspected off aircraft. The issue is the holiday weekend. Unless aircraft structure was damaged, the aircraft should fly within a week. The engine? It will be torn apart and studied in detail for a long time. Someone owes AC a new engine... even if its AC itself.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 36495 times:

Of course one has to wonder how this major failure happened. Could bird ingestion be a factor or is this some mx or original part flaw that was missed? I also wonder if their is some flaw in this GE engine series as there has been several major engine failures of them used on 777's.

Just be glad no one was injured or killed, just some replaceable damage, most likely covered by insurance.


User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 36413 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Any parts that go out the nozzles are a 'contained failure.'

Appreciate the clarification..

Quoting kl692 (Reply 13):
Just got back from the airport, I have video of the A/C taxing to gate on Youtube. not the greatest video I have done but it is something. the first 10 sec is not that great

http://youtu.be/NIoYzZdYp40

Thanks for posting this!

KrisYYZ


User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 36245 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):
This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is. This is probably going to have a ripple effect down the line, and depending on how long it's out for there might be some immediate down gauges on some flights. Fingers crossed it is just the engine, and GE/AC can get a new one in ASAP. Thankfully they got it back to YYZ, and not some small airport elsewhere.

If not a single 777 is available and C-FITW is non-operational for an extended period, does AC have any 763s to take over 001 for a while? Or would they rather pull a 777 from somewhere else? YYZ-NRT was operated by a 763 prior to the T7s, no?

KrisYYZ


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 34855 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):
This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is.

Indeed it is. I was just discussing it on this thread: Air Canada Oddball Heathrow Movements

I hope this doesn't cause any more delayed flights like the mess at Heathrow!


User currently offlinethreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2170 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 34670 times:

Quoting philipkk (Reply 4):
There are a few pics and a video report
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local...4Home

Call off the TSB, I think the CP24 reporter at the scene has solved the cause of the incident. After picking up and smelling one of the pieces that fell from the aircraft, she commented that "it smells like gasoline". Of course we know that that will likely cause less than optimal performance on most GE90 engines.
Mind you, the pieces did land in and around a PetroCan gas station, so maybe that has something to do with it. It couldn't possibly be that our intrepid reporter doesn't know the difference between the smells of gasoline, kerosene smells or any one of the combustible fluids in aircraft engines.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 36273 times:

How many big GE90 failures have occurred in the past? Any on the GE90-110 that the B777-200LR/-300ER use?

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 35734 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 25):
How many big GE90 failures have occurred in the past? Any on the GE90-110 that the B777-200LR/-300ER use?

AC had 2 77Ws divert to Alaska on flights to Asia (one to Fairbanks in 2008 and one to Anchorage in 2009). Both required an engine change and the engines had to be trucked to Alaska. The one for the 77W in FAI came all the way from YYZ, a road trip of about 4,000 miles that took about a week. Both aircraft were out of service for about 2 weeks.

I believe one involved the gearbox and the other some damaged turbine blades.

I also recall a QR 77W that diverted to Gander in September 2008 due to an engine failure and required an engine change. Summary of that one from the Transport Canada occurence reporting site:

UPDATE TSB: A08A0115: The Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300ER aircraft was operating as QTR052 from Washington, DC to Doha, Qatar at FL370. At 02:25 NDT, when approximately 175nm west of Gander, the crew declared a Mayday due to an engine failure (GE90-115B); they requested and were cleared descent to FL200 and a diversion to Gander, NL. Clearance to dump fuel approximately 30nm N of Gander was requested and received. The aircraft landed without further incident at 03:16 NDT. The engine, serial number unknown, had failed in cruise flight. During an unsuccessful relight attempt, EGT limitations were exceeded. Subsequent inspection revealed tiny particles in the tailpipe and debris on chip detectors. The engine was removed and will be returned to the manufacturer for further examination.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 36083 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):
This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is. This is probably going to have a ripple effect down the line, and depending on how long it's out for there might be some immediate down gauges on some flights. Fingers crossed it is just the engine, and GE/AC can get a new one in ASAP. Thankfully they got it back to YYZ, and not some small airport elsewhere.

Based on previous AC experience with T7engine failures (2) 1-2 weeks will likely be the service outage for this a/c. I'd err towards a shorter time since they dont have to truck the engine to Alaska.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1277 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 35400 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):

This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is. This is probably going to have a ripple effect down the line, and depending on how long it's out for there might be some immediate down gauges on some flights.

If it's really dire, there is always the short term ACMI solution, which several carriers would be happy to provide, though likely only Atlas or Omni would have the requisite equipment to sub for a 777 of any kind.

[Edited 2012-05-28 21:55:03]

User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 35153 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
AC had 2 77Ws divert to Alaska on flights to Asia (one to Fairbanks in 2008 and one to Anchorage in 2009). Both required an engine change and the engines had to be trucked to Alaska. The one for the 77W in FAI came all the way from YYZ, a road trip of about 4,000 miles that took about a week. Both aircraft were out of service for about 2 weeks.

Did they also have to truck in equipment needed to change the engine? I can't imagine you can simply hang a GE-90 engine from a chain and drop it into position. What sort of equipment is required to change an engine that size and where would an airline get it from?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 34353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Based on previous AC experience with T7engine failures (2) 1-2 weeks will likely be the service outage for this a/c. I'd err towards a shorter time since they dont have to truck the engine to Alaska.

Thank you. However, due to the holiday weekend (many Americans take this week off from work), I think the issue will be getting people out to inspect the airframe. Or maybe it will go quicker as one won't have someone saying 'sample this and that.'

Was there significant nacelle damage? I see pictures of the cars impacted, but not of the engine/nacelle.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 28):
If it's really dire, there is always the short term ACMI solution, which several carriers would be happy to provide, though likely only Atlas or Omni would have the requisite equipment to sub for a 777 of any kind.

Or wet lease a 744... I wouldn't be surprised if one of AC's *A partners wouldn't be willing to help, for the right fee that is.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 25):
ow many big GE90 failures have occurred in the past?

What do you consider a failure? Only AC? GE had trouble with compressors a year back. Before then KLM (IIRC at JNB) had issues too. That was also a compressor problem. They were allowed to ferry, sans passengers, back to AMS for that repair.

Do not get me wrong, the GE-90-115 is an excellent engine. But it is a high performance engine and that means issues.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinespotter From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 34426 times:

A/C 733 is currently under going a #2 engine change. Looks like the LPT let go and there is quite a bit of damage. Aircraft will most likely be out of service for a few days. We do have a spare engine in
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1983 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 34110 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):
This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now, the entire fleet but especially the 777's are running to the wall as it is

I'm not familiar with ACs 777 ops... what is going on to cause the fleet to be running thin?



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 33662 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 16):
This is about the worst thing that could happen to AC right now

What are you talking about? The aircraft landed safely with no injuries. If AC were picking bits of airframe out of a carpark I would agree with you but this is just an engine change, not even anything to buff out as far as we know.

Now if any stray engine parts hit the skin it could get a bit more tricky but it is still not close to the worst thing that could happen to AC.



BV
User currently offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 33463 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 22):
If not a single 777 is available and C-FITW is non-operational for an extended period, does AC have any 763s to take over 001 for a while? Or would they rather pull a 777 from somewhere else? NRT was operated by a 763 prior to the T7s, no?

At the moment, no not really. 767 fleet is down a frame from last year, and flying has slightly increased. At this point though, 763's are about the only option for subs as it is easier to shuffle flights around to minimize the damage.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 23):
I hope this doesn't cause any more delayed flights like the mess at Heathrow!

While not directly related, it all comes back to the fleet running at near max capacity, as the summer schedule starts to swing into full effect. LHR has been bad lately, just one of those cycles unfortunately.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
However, due to the holiday weekend

Unfortunately, only our neighbours to the south are able to enjoy the holiday weekend, for us it is a normal work week, so there shouldn't be any delay getting this bird worked on.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
Or wet lease a 744... I wouldn't be surprised if one of AC's *A partners wouldn't be willing to help, for the right fee that is.

While the situation is not that dire, and hopefully does not get that bad, that is one option. However I'm not sure AC would go for the 744, not many routes really need the capacity. However it could definitely help if they decide to combine two dailies into one 744 flight, free up some much needed A/C.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 32):
I'm not familiar with ACs 777 ops... what is going on to cause the fleet to be running thin?

It's not just the 777 fleet, it's the whole fleet. The drive for increased efficiency has lead to a higher a/c utilization rate, which means the planes are in the air more often. While this is great in terms of revenue generation, it is not so great there are no spares, and planes go down/need checks. Unfortunately, the latest 777 orders should have been placed a year ago, as I don't think the first two planes will be ready until 2013 or so. Short term, I think the best option is to pick up some 763's on the market, and get them up and running ASAP. This would help ease the pressure a bit until the arrival of the five 77W's, and of course, the 787's.

EDIT - This has been a tough week for AC's 777 fleet, as yesterday there were troubles at YVR which lead to some cancellations. Just one of those weeks...

[Edited 2012-05-28 23:51:51]

User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 33440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does this have any effect on AC's ETOPs rating for their 777's?


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 offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 33348 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
What are you talking about

Err, if you had read the next part of the sentence, and the quote, it probably would have become evident what I was talking about. In case it still doesn't make any sense, I was referring to the operation/fleet perspective, and while it isn't the single worst thing that could happen, losing a 77W for 1-2 weeks as the summer schedule swings into full gear, with no spares, is not a good thing! Hope that clarifies what I meant.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 15
Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 32627 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 8):
The top piece in the photo from the CP24 website looks like a turbine blade from one of the lower stages of the engine. The bluish tinge leads me to believe it was in a high-temp area, much like the internal combustion stages.

Not to nit pick, but it looks like you've shown a compressor in your photo. Granted, most people would see a liberated blade (or blades) and be unlikely to tell the difference.



Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
User currently offlineflightsimboy From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 32778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am usually near the fence taking pics, but due to the intense heat today was under the shade of the trees across the road. Here is a video I took, sorry for the cars and the obvious fence in the way. Had no idea at the time what the reason was for the escort. I would have actually had a pic of it lining up on Rwy 23 and then perhaps one of it landing, but blame it on the weather  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EWxo78Knv4&feature=youtu.be

And here are the flight details from www.flightaware.com

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7293111840_b738f143d2_b.jpg


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 32391 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 37):
Not to nit pick, but it looks like you've shown a compressor in your photo. Granted, most people would see a liberated blade (or blades) and be unlikely to tell the difference.

I don't mean to sound like a noob, but how could you tell that it was a compressor and not a turbine blade?


User currently offlineflightsimboy From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 20 hours ago) and read 32279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YOWVIEWER (Reply 15):
Just curious, a Toronto to Narita 777 would have a full fuel load on board and this occurred just after takeoff . How would they get it back down on the ground so quickly without blowing some tires ?
Quoting kl692 (Reply 17):
They did a fuel dump, the A/C must have return after an hour or so.

See the flightaware map. It says it returned in 51 minutes.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 31128 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
Was there significant nacelle damage? I see pictures of the cars impacted, but not of the engine/nacelle.

Doesn't seem to be any nacelle damage, so everything went out the tube, I suppose.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 32):
I'm not familiar with ACs 777 ops... what is going on to cause the fleet to be running thin?

They simply don't have enough of them. AC have traditionally been conservative in a/c purchases. 2 more -300ERs next summer, the additional 3 recently announced likely 2014. Then there's the possibilityof 5 more -200LRs.

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 34):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
However, due to the holiday weekend

Unfortunately, only our neighbours to the south are able to enjoy the holiday weekend, for us it is a normal work week, so there shouldn't be any delay getting this bird worked on.

But we had one the weekend previously...

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 34):
Short term, I think the best option is to pick up some 763's on the market, and get them up and running ASAP

Not sure how many are available, then there's the cabin config issue. Do you make them like the 3 'orphans' that don't have J class ? Or spend the money and time to XM them ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 31231 times:

http://www.cp24.com/tl/photo.html?pn...20on%20Monday,%20May%2028,%202012.

Seeing this photo, it's normal that those parts are that 'rusted' or burnt?

Thanks!
R.


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 31061 times:

Quoting Plainplane (Thread starter):
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120528/051812_plane_debris/20120528/?hub=CP24Home

"It was hot and it smells like gasoline".

Well, probably something you should touch with your bare hands and sniff then, isn't it?
  


User currently offlineN5716B From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 30296 times:

Quoting threepoint (Reply 24):
Call off the TSB, I think the CP24 reporter at the scene has solved the cause of the incident. After picking up and smelling one of the pieces that fell from the aircraft, she commented that "it smells like gasoline". Of course we know that that will likely cause less than optimal performance on most GE90 engines.

Oh blessed mercy, it's WONDERFUL to see that our brethren to the north have such staunch, eagle-eyed (and nosed, it appears) reporters presenting us all with Up! To! The! Second! Coverage! and keeping YOU Informed!

Honestly, I wonder how some of those intrepid reporters actually manage to get out of bed successfully.



Bring back the L-1011!
User currently offlinetransaeroyyz From Canada, joined Dec 2010, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 29524 times:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1134244/L/

This is what it probably looked like, quite concerning that this is still happening years later!


User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7522 posts, RR: 7
Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 28522 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 18):
This is not the first 777 to have engine failure on/after take off. Several years ago, CO 9, EWR to NRT had an engine failure on take off and had to do an emergency return. This was a contained failure.

Wasn't it a MH 777 taking off from ZRH a few years ago,too? I remember a picture of the engine spewing parts out of it.



'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlinekl692 From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 28057 times:

Someone posted on youtube about the A/C being back in service already

"The aircraft was repaired and is now flying Sydney to Hong kong and now one was injured

Jonathen Flanaghan in reply to hkgyyzhkg (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago"

Is this right? if so couldn't have been that much a problem



A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
User currently offlinestrangr From Australia, joined Apr 2012, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 27573 times:

I'd say incorrect, It would be a decent haul to replace that and have the transport Canada board do their investigations
(limited) in that amount of time.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 33
Reply 49, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 27515 times:

Quoting United_fan (Reply 46):
Wasn't it a MH 777 taking off from ZRH a few years ago,too?

But they are all Trent engines.

Quoting strangr (Reply 48):
I'd say incorrect, It would be a decent haul to replace that and have the transport Canada board do their investigations
(limited) in that amount of time.

But if it was a simple engine failure, and at a main base with an engine and guys available, then it could be ready by now.
No need to ground the aircraft for investigation. Youve got the broken engine in the hangar to look at.


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 27443 times:

Quoting transaeroyyz (Reply 45):
This is what it probably looked like, quite concerning that this is still happening years later!

Firstly, in the incident pic you linked, the engine was not a GE-90 but a RR Trent 800. Secondly, the MH incident had nothing to do with the RR engine and was caused by delamination of the D-Duct which I believe is a Boeing part.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...sian-boeing-777-200er-over-210474/


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 33
Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 26968 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 50):
Secondly, the MH incident had nothing to do with the RR engine and was caused by delamination of the D-Duct which I believe is a Boeing part.

Correct. There was some collateral damage to the jet pipe, but it was caused by the failure of the Boeing D Duct.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 49):
No need to ground the aircraft for investigation.

And on the MH D Duct., I called out the local Swedish accident investigators, but after a good look around they declared that they were not interested.


User currently offline777 From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 26762 times:

Looking at the Avherald website it seems that the a/c involved is C-FITW.... it's quite funny to note that, excluding the last letter, this is definitely not an encouraging registration for an a/c!  

User currently offlinekl692 From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 26287 times:

Any how for those that haven't seen any pic yet, Here is one I snap as I was busy recording .




A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 26057 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting 777 (Reply 52):
Looking at the Avherald website it seems that the a/c involved is C-FITW.... it's quite funny to note that, excluding the last letter, this is definitely not an encouraging registration for an a/c!  

AC's 1st 3 77Ws are in the same registration series... 1st was C-FITL, the 2nd is worse I would say   ... C-FITU:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allen Zhao



I drove by the scene this morning. Besides a few news vans around the gas station nothing much was going on I could see. I go through there everyday almost to/from work.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 25766 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 51):
And on the MH D Duct., I called out the local Swedish accident investigators, but after a good look around they declared that they were not interested.


I find that quite surprising considering the incident at ARN happened more than a year after the FAA issue an AD. Have there been any service bulletins to address the issue?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 23100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 49):
No need to ground the aircraft for investigation. Youve got the broken engine in the hangar to look at.

After the filters are pulled, fuel sampled, software logs dowloaded, etc. That ends up taking a few days. This is standard for an engine failure as there are aspects of the airplane that could lead to the failure. Its not good enough to fix the problem, the issue must be understood. Its quite possible contaminated fuel was the culprit or if not the root cause a contributor. It won't take long to release the airframe, but it does have to be grounded until the aircraft subsystems that impact the engine are investigated.

It was also an uncontained failure. Did any parts hit the airframe? Even if there was no part impact on the airframe, the failure might have been an event that could damage the pylon. There is more than a little inspection ahead for C-FITW.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4289 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 21797 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
The engine should already be on its way (if not half way to on the wing) with a new nacelle. The will need to pull fuel filters and sample aircraft fuel. The rest will be pulled and inspected off aircraft. The issue is the holiday weekend. Unless aircraft structure was damaged, the aircraft should fly within a week. The engine? It will be torn apart and studied in detail for a long time. Someone owes AC a new engine... even if its AC itself.

Excuse my ignorance, and I know AC doesn't have many B777s in their fleet, but wouldn't they have access to a spare engine somewhere? For this very reason? If not, isn't that kind of a risk? I know the GE90s are usually very reliable but they do require servicing. I was once told that an engine usually sits on a aircraft for an average of 3-5 years before it is replaced, so most airlines have functioning spare engines ready to be swapped.
Assuming there is no structural damage to the wing or airframe, this aircraft should be back in service within a week if they access to an engine. Time is money.

Quoting 777 (Reply 52):
Looking at the Avherald website it seems that the a/c involved is C-FITW.... it's quite funny to note that, excluding the last letter, this is definitely not an encouraging registration for an a/c!

I noticed that too - why on Earth would they have chosen such awful letters? Granted, most people outside of the industry wouldn't know what CFIT stands for but I'm pretty sure all pilots know!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3568 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (2 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 21186 times:

Is it possible to take the 777s off the non-essential routes like LHR and FRA (replacing them with 767s and A330s) in order to deploy them on the Asian flights?


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinePelle From Denmark, joined Apr 2012, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 20322 times:

What was the registration of the 777 that experienced this engine failure?


Upcoming flights: CPH-KEF, BLL-STN
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 26
Reply 60, posted (2 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 17977 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
To us non-techies, uncontained failure does that mean not contained within the engine or a puncture of the fuselage?

A uncontained failure would consist of parts(which usually are the rotating parts) of the engine which come through the Fan or Engine case. Going out the tailpipe is a contained failure, even though there might be more debris than in a uncontained failure. This is why most large Fans now have kevlar wraps around the Fan Case, it is a lightweight solution to help contain fan blades from piercing the fan case. Lots of energy there. Otherwise, the fan cases would be too heavy without the kevlar wraps.

In the core engine, there is not as much energy. One of the big problems would be if a turbine disk let go. That's a lot of energy there, not so much in individual turbine blades relative to the fan.

Quoting B757forever (Reply 14):
My understanding has always been that an uncontained failure would describe a situation in which parts exited the engine by puncturing through the engine case or containment ring. True uncontained failures are rare. I suspect when the analysis is done, this AC incident will be declared a contained failure, as the parts most likely exited the tailpipe.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
Any parts that go out the nozzles are a 'contained failure.'

  



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 61, posted (2 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 17743 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
My initial impression was a turbine blade or blades, likely from the HP turbine, got shed and exited the back end. GE90s I believe have passed the goose test.

They don't test with geese - but with smaller birds.

Quoting B757forever (Reply 14):
My understanding has always been that an uncontained failure would describe a situation in which parts exited the engine by puncturing through the engine case or containment ring. True uncontained failures are rare. I suspect when the analysis is done, this AC incident will be declared a contained failure, as the parts most likely exited the tailpipe.

If items shed out the back - it is contained. But - as is noted, we don't have data yet.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20):
Of course one has to wonder how this major failure happened. Could bird ingestion be a factor or is this some mx or original part flaw that was missed?

Yes. Yes. Yes.



rcair1
User currently offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 17819 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 41):
Not sure how many are available, then there's the cabin config issue. Do you make them like the 3 'orphans' that don't have J class ? Or spend the money and time to XM them ?

I'm sure if they needed them bad enough, some could be found. Well if it's only a short term thing, then they probably wouldn't bother with the XM cabin, but if it was a long term (5+ years) then I suspect they would take the time to make them match the rest of the fleet, saves many headaches down the road. Nothing worse then having to tell a super elite his suite is now just a seat  
Quoting N5716B (Reply 44):
Honestly, I wonder how some of those intrepid reporters actually manage to get out of bed successfully.

Thanks for the laugh, and yes we have our share of "reporters" that are often too smart for their own good.

Quoting kl692 (Reply 47):
Is this right? if so couldn't have been that much a problem

No that's definitely not correct. AC definitely does not fly SYD to HKG, a/c is still in the hanger, and will be for some time.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
There is more than a little inspection ahead for C-FITW.

  

Quoting richierich (Reply 57):
Assuming there is no structural damage to the wing or airframe, this aircraft should be back in service within a week if they access to an engine. Time is money.

In a perfect world, yes, but modern airplanes are incredibly complex machines. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm sure someone on here will be able to fill us on on the multitude of tests that are required before it can take to the air again. Better to err on the side of caution then to rush a ~ $300 million investment into the air.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 58):
Is it possible to take the 777s off the non-essential routes like LHR and FRA (replacing them with 767s and A330s) in order to deploy them on the Asian flights?

I don't think I would call LHR & FRA non-essential routes   In terms of demand, right now it would be easier to sub a 767 in for the asia routes, as they are not running near as full as LHR or FRA, and could take the 767 with a minimal amount of disruption.

Quoting Pelle (Reply 59):
What was the registration of the 777 that experienced this engine failure?

C-FITW, Fin #733


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 33
Reply 63, posted (2 years 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 17187 times:

Quoting ANM604 (Reply 62):
In a perfect world, yes, but modern airplanes are incredibly complex machines. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm sure someone on here will be able to fill us on on the multitude of tests that are required before it can take to the air again.

Either some of you know a lot more about this than you are saying, or you are making it up.
An engine has failed, it will be changed.
If no other damage has occured, this will take 10 hrs or so, if the spare engine is on site.

When you fit a new engine, it needs a leak check. Takes about 20 mins.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
fter the filters are pulled, fuel sampled, software logs dowloaded, etc. That ends up taking a few days. This is standard for an engine failure as there are aspects of the airplane that could lead to the failure

When I started on the L1011 in 1976 in BAH, we had an engine failure every week. The engines had a hard life of 1200 cycles, which they never achieved. We changed at least one engine a week. If every engine change took a few days, we would have no aircraft left.
My record was in the hangar at 1400, engine changed and back on the ramp at 1900, departed at 2050.


User currently offlineHNLPointShoot From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (2 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 14030 times:

I may be the only person on this site who cares about this, but Japanese voice actress Yuu Asakawa was on this flight, returning to Japan after attending the Anime North convention in Toronto. Her Twitter account has a few pictures of the fuel dump and emergency vehicles.

User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 13859 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 41):

Not sure how many are available, then there's the cabin config issue. Do you make them like the 3 'orphans' that don't have J class ? Or spend the money and time to XM them ?

Off topic, but do you know if the 3 non-xm'd 763 are staying for a while? I have friends going to BCN who are very disappointed about not getting IFE's.

According to avhearld, the FADEC shut down the engine automatically due to the EGT increase. Anyone know at what temp the FADEC starts to shut-down the engine?

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 65):
Off topic, but do you know if the 3 non-xm'd 763 are staying for a while? I have friends going to BCN who are very disappointed about not getting IFE's.

I'd say these 3 are bound for the LCC, which is coming whether some embrace it or not.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinebartonsayswhat From Canada, joined Oct 2007, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 12934 times:

Looks like 733 is planned for AC001/31MAY, so back in the air Thursday afternoon.

[Edited 2012-05-29 15:55:02]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 12903 times:

Quoting richierich (Reply 57):
I know AC doesn't have many B777s in their fleet
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 29):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
AC had 2 77Ws divert to Alaska on flights to Asia (one to Fairbanks in 2008 and one to Anchorage in 2009). Both required an engine change and the engines had to be trucked to Alaska. The one for the 77W in FAI came all the way from YYZ, a road trip of about 4,000 miles that took about a week. Both aircraft were out of service for about 2 weeks.

Did they also have to truck in equipment needed to change the engine?

News items at the time said the necessary equipment for the engine change was shipped with the engine.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5132 posts, RR: 43
Reply 69, posted (2 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 12594 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 66):
I'd say these 3 are bound for the LCC, which is coming whether some embrace it or not.

The plan for the LWC, (it will NOT be a LCC), is for even more seats in the B763. There is talk of 2x4x2 in Y, and a Y+ of 2x2x2. In other words, "you wanted a cheap seat ... there it is". The start up is for 5 B763s.

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 65):
Off topic, but do you know if the 3 non-xm'd 763 are staying for a while? I have friends going to BCN who are very disappointed about not getting IFE's.
BCN is a very low yield market, and the low yield B763s are placed on it for that reason. So unless there is a last minute equipment change, the only IFE will be the overhead screens.

[Edited 2012-05-29 16:48:29]


Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (2 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 12523 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 66):
I'd say these 3 are bound for the LCC, which is coming whether some embrace it or not.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 69):
BCN is a very low yeild market, and the low yield B763s are placed on it for that reason. So unless there is a last minute equipment change, the only IFE will be the overhead screens.

Thanks for the info!

Not sure if AC is planning long-haul LCC, but by the sounds of it BCN would make a good LCC destination.

In the B77L thread, some have suggested that IF AC takes AI 's 77Ls, they could be configured for LCC ops, any chance of that? Isn't the 77L to heavy and basically the wrong aircraft for LCC ops?

KrisYYZ

[Edited 2012-05-29 16:53:17]

User currently offlineabnormal From UK - England, joined Aug 2007, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 12459 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 65):
According to avhearld, the FADEC shut down the engine automatically due to the EGT increase. Anyone know at what temp the FADEC starts to shut-down the engine?

I thought FADEC would never ever shut down an engine. Crew have to do it themselves regardless of engine condition.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 26
Reply 72, posted (2 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 12241 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 63):
If no other damage has occured, this will take 10 hrs or so, if the spare engine is on site.

When you fit a new engine, it needs a leak check. Takes about 20 mins.

Besides the spare engine, another engine dolly and a set of hoist or some other engine lifting tools.

If it's like most engine changes, have to take her out for a acceleration check, power assurance run too.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinelnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 73, posted (2 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 11992 times:

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 64):
I may be the only person on this site who cares about this, but Japanese voice actress Yuu Asakawa was on this flight, returning to Japan after attending the Anime North convention in Toronto. Her Twitter account has a few pictures of the fuel dump and emergency vehicles.

When you talk about a failure like this, and add it up with all the other 'crap' going on at AC right now, and combine it with the comment I found on Yuu Asakawa's twitter account (below), this goes to show you why people view *some* airlines as complete failures in customer service....

From her twitter:

Yuu Asakawa ‏@Julia320

But in spite of the trouble,some female staff members at the service Counter of Air Canada are so obnoxious and rude. Speechless.

---------------------------

Hence why more and more of my friends and family continue to shuffle across the border to fly on JetBlue, or fly on WestJet.

A failure of an airline to achieve the desired results of delivering on their promise to get you from A to B on X day AND their subsequent handling of the aftermath are a direct measure of the health of an airline, and.. really, can be applied to any business.

I'm glad that the plane made it back safely, no one was hurt, but these large airlines need to really get their act together on how they treat the people AFTER a 'failure to deliver' occurs.

1011



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20236 posts, RR: 59
Reply 74, posted (2 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 11949 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 39):
I don't mean to sound like a noob, but how could you tell that it was a compressor and not a turbine blade?

From the blade, you can tell because turbine blade will show signs of very high temps (once it's been used), the compressor blades won't. But from the photo posted in reply 8, it's a (brand-new) compressor. Turbines have fewer stages and the diameter of the rotor increases with each stage. Compressors have more stages and the diameter of the rotor stays the same for most of it, but the diameter of the central disks increase, leading to constant volume as the flow is compressed.

A picture of a GE-90 turbine (and a 6' man for scale) is shown at this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gereports/5387761739/

You can see that each stage has a markedly different diameter than the stage before it.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 75, posted (2 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 11900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting richierich (Reply 57):
but wouldn't they have access to a spare engine somewhere?

Yes. But where? When KLM had a GE-90-115 fail, their one spare was in AMS when the plane was in South Africa. With AC's small (and diverse) 777 fleet, they might 'lease' a spare engine from GE most likely kept at Schenectady or another GE location. Since each GE-90-115 is worth ~$15 million, they aren't sent out the door without proper paper. That takes a few hours. Also, the proceedures for an uncontained failure must be 'made available' (does AC work to paper or paperless?) from Boeing and GE too. (I'm sure they are standard inspection paper pressed into service to look for damage.)

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 63):
When I started on the L1011 in 1976

You do realize, due to numerous crashes and ETOPS, the rules have changed in 36 years? One has to prove far better reliability than what was accepted back then before an aircraft is ETOPS certified. Also terminology has changed. Many of the RB211s you pulled would have had defects and not failures in today's jargon. Its ok today to pull an engine for a defect (which might be an upcoming failure with a known remaining life). Pulling an engine for a failure is a far bigger deal for both the engine vendor and the airline.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 63):
We changed at least one engine a week. If every engine change took a few days, we would have no aircraft left.

I'm not implying for every engine change. I'm discussing an uncontained failure under ETOPS rules. Heck, in the late 1990s the rules changed for multi-engine aircraft after Pratt put a third of a rotor through a mom and child. For an engine being pulled for a malfunction, defect, uncertain boroscope inspection (or for it), it can be done in hours.

But under today's ETOPS rules, engine issues as you describe would thankfully result in a grounded fleet. A GE and the above mentioned Pratt rotor failure happened almost back to back and that changed the regulations. The fact AC has had three GE-90 failures will result in a nice little six sigma study to figure out what they are doing wrong; three failures over the years!

Quoting bartonsayswhat (Reply 67):
Looks like 733 is planned for AC001/31MAY, so back in the air Thursday afternoon

Which makes my part of the discussion moot. It looks like AC had the proceedures on hand and the engine too (or cloes by). Good to hear.


Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 63):
Either some of you know a lot more about this than you are saying, or you are making it up.

When you fit a new engine, it needs a leak check. Takes about 20 mins.

While I was only a child back then, I find it tough to believe an uncontained failure had no investigation back then.

For a normal engine change, that is true. If AC plays that fast and loose after an uncontained failure... I doubt it. Other inspections must happen. It doesn't take that long. It can be done in 48 hours and it looks like AC won't take too much longer than that. Again, there is a big difference between defective engine and a "failure." Failures *must* be reported to the appropriate aviation authorities and woe to the airline that lacks proof they did the follow up correctly. It can result in a warning or even loss of ETOPS privileges.

Seriously, when I was at Pratt after an engine failure we received the fuel filter with some sample fuel, the oil filter with oil to be sampled, the FADAC logs, black box logs (both cockpit voice and data), photos of the airframe plus the engine, and the engine for discection. I somehow doubt AC would be lax and put their ETOPS cert at risk.



Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 76, posted (2 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 11826 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20):
Of course one has to wonder how this major failure happened.

Too early to tell, but contained failures are statistically unavoidable.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20):
Could bird ingestion be a factor or is this some mx or original part flaw that was missed?

Yes and yes, and maybe neither.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 20):
I also wonder if their is some flaw in this GE engine series as there has been several major engine failures of them used on 777's.

Unlikely; the reliability of engines is most typically measured in In-Flight Shutdowns (IFSD's) per 100,000 flight hours. Given the number of GE90's in service and the rate they rack up hours, it takes many events to make a statistical blip. Some number of failures is normal and expected; this engine appears to have done exactly what it was supposed to when faced with a blade failure.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 35):
Does this have any effect on AC's ETOPs rating for their 777's?

Not by default, unless TC decides they want to do something. Most ETOPS-rated engines run so far below the threshold IFSD requirements that any one failure doesn't make any difference.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 39):
I don't mean to sound like a noob, but how could you tell that it was a compressor and not a turbine blade?

In general, compressor blades are light, thin, and don't look like they've been blasted with a blowtorch. Turbine blades are the opposite.

Quoting abnormal (Reply 71):
I thought FADEC would never ever shut down an engine

A FADEC will generally never actually give a shutdown command on its own; however, it will implement protections which may end up with the engine not getting enough fuel to stay running, in which case it shuts down by default.

Quoting abnormal (Reply 71):
Crew have to do it themselves regardless of engine condition.

Crew can do it at any time; the FADEC will not intentionally allow a catastrophic engine condition to occur and, if shutdown is required to reach that goal, it will do so. The FADEC will try to keep the engine running as long as it can.

Tom.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 77, posted (2 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 11809 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 69):
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 65):
Off topic, but do you know if the 3 non-xm'd 763 are staying for a while? I have friends going to BCN who are very disappointed about not getting IFE's.
BCN is a very low yield market, and the low yield B763s are placed on it for that reason. So unless there is a last minute equipment change, the only IFE will be the overhead screens.

BCN and ATH are really only served due to their being 'home ports' for many cruise ships in the Med. Serving these destinations permits AC Holidays to provide a total package for cruise ship pax.

Given the likelihood of Greece having extended financial problems, it will be interesting to see if AC continue to serve ATH.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (2 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 11739 times:

If anyone saw the ABC or CNN coverage of this incident they focused on "can a plane continue take-off with just one engine?" Uhh, yes it can, it isnt a question, it absolutely can. But the reporting suggested that it just might not make it on one engine and that it was just almost a giant disaster. They also ran repeated video of an AC A320 taking off and a 767-300 landing. ABC did have an animation of a 777 but otherwise it was all the wrong plane. They also defined what happened as "uncontained" which I think we all now see was not the case as it appears the debris exited the tailpipe and not through the engine casing.

User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 11556 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):

A FADEC will generally never actually give a shutdown command on its own; however, it will implement protections which may end up with the engine not getting enough fuel to stay running, in which case it shuts down by default.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
Crew can do it at any time; the FADEC will not intentionally allow a catastrophic engine condition to occur and, if shutdown is required to reach that goal, it will do so. The FADEC will try to keep the engine running as long as it ca

That makes sense, I appreciate the info.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 77):
BCN and ATH are really only served due to their being 'home ports' for many cruise ships in the Med. Serving these destinations permits AC Holidays to provide a total package for cruise ship pax.

Given the likelihood of Greece having extended financial problems, it will be interesting to see if AC continue to serve ATH.

Thanks again. I was thinking the same thing about Greece, it would be interesting to know what the mix is on the ATH flight, AC holiday pax vs. VFR pax who flew OA in the past. I miss seeing the OA A343 at YYZ.

KrisYYZ


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11233 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 78):
They also defined what happened as "uncontained" which I think we all now see was not the case as it appears the debris exited the tailpipe and not through the engine casing.

Do we have accounts of anybody who has set eyes on the cowling to confirm this?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
A FADEC will generally never actually give a shutdown command on its own; however, it will implement protections which may end up with the engine not getting enough fuel to stay running, in which case it shuts down by default.

Follow up question: Are the FADEC's aware of each other, i.e if one engine is shutdown will the other FADEC alter its operations / parameters in any way



BV
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 81, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11221 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 78):
If anyone saw the ABC or CNN coverage of this incident they focused on "can a plane continue take-off with just one engine?" Uhh, yes it can, it isnt a question, it absolutely can.

Not only can the 777 do it, but it's specifically designed and certified to.



What the...?
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1342 posts, RR: 15
Reply 82, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 39):
I don't mean to sound like a noob, but how could you tell that it was a compressor and not a turbine blade?

Here's the best nutshell "how do you tell" answer.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
In general, compressor blades are light, thin, and don't look like they've been blasted with a blowtorch. Turbine blades are the opposite.

Sorry for the delay. If you (jporterfi) have any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them (if tdscanuck or lightsaber don't get back to you first).



Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
User currently offlineANM604 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10930 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 70):
Not sure if AC is planning long-haul LCC, but by the sounds of it BCN would make a good LCC destination.

In the B77L thread, some have suggested that IF AC takes AI 's 77Ls, they could be configured for LCC ops, any chance of that? Isn't the 77L to heavy and basically the wrong aircraft for LCC ops?

BCN has been served by AC using the non-XM'ed 767's since the summer of 2010 (I believe), so in some sense they have already been serving it in LCC/LWC ops. Yes they could configure the 77LR's for the start-up, and yes, it is not the greatest a/c for the routes it would likely be used on.

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 73):
I'm glad that the plane made it back safely, no one was hurt, but these large airlines need to really get their act together on how they treat the people AFTER a 'failure to deliver' occurs.

I see what you're saying, but unless we were there, it's really hard to judge how an airline handled a situation from one persons tweet. It really isn't that credible. Granted that in an ideal situation passengers shouldn't be complaining, but in reality, there will ALWAYS be someone who cannot be pleased. It's just human nature.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 75):

Great post, thanks.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 84, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 80):
Are the FADEC's aware of each other, i.e if one engine is shutdown will the other FADEC alter its operations / parameters in any way

I don't think the FADEC's talk directly to each other; that would open a up a whole potential can of worms where a failing FADEC could influence the good engine and that's contrary to most propulsion design practices.

The FADEC's do talk to the airplane and the airplane can alter commands to each engine independently. As a result, if an engine fails, the airplane may ask the running engine's FADEC to do something different but I don't think the other FADEC knows why it's being asked.

For example, in large twins at low weight and high thrust you can get below Vmca during an engine failure if you're not careful; the airplane may reduce thrust on the running engine (you're light so you still have the required climb performance) to maintain acceptable margin to Vmca.

Tom.


User currently offlinegasturbineengr From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 7 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9906 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 74):
A picture of a GE-90 turbine (and a 6' man for scale) is shown at this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gereports/5387761739/

You can see that each stage has a markedly different diameter than the stage before it.

That picture is of an industrial gas turbine at GE Schenectady. Not a GE90.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 80):

Follow up question: Are the FADEC's aware of each other, i.e if one engine is shutdown will the other FADEC alter its operations / parameters in any way

The FADEC for each engine implements the thrust demand of the pilot or the airplane, for that engine only. The FADEC does not demand thrust, it schedules the engine parameters (N1, fuel, VSV position) in response to a demand. If one engine is shut down the other FADEC is unaware, it is up to the pilot or airplane to demand more thrust if appropriate from the other engine.


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 86, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9552 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84):

I don't think the FADEC's talk directly to each other; that would open a up a whole potential can of worms where a failing FADEC could influence the good engine and that's contrary to most propulsion design practices.
Quoting gasturbineengr (Reply 85):

The FADEC for each engine implements the thrust demand of the pilot or the airplane, for that engine only. The FADEC does not demand thrust, it schedules the engine parameters (N1, fuel, VSV position) in response to a demand.

I hear you both, the scenario that I had in mind though is that a FADEC will try to protect the engine and as mentioned above this kind of protection may lead to an inadvertent shutdown, now this would be a minor inconvenience if the other engine is still turning but if it isn't it would make sense for the FADEC on the operational engine to suck it up and allow the potential damage to occur (as long as it wasn't about to throw blades).

I understand that designing this control feature in could be problematic for a whole host of reasons but as my job involves coming up with outlandish failure scenarios in interdependent systems and seeing what can be done to mitigate risk this scenario occurred to me.



BV
User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 7
Reply 87, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

I also find it amusing how the big news today is that the plane had two previous incidents - an APU fire and a goose ingestion in 2009 - years ago!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...29/falling-debris-aircraft546.html

Some of the comments on the article are also pretty funny...

[Edited 2012-05-30 10:27:33]


Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 88, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
The FADEC will try to keep the engine running as long as it can.

   A windmilling engine is drag. A FADAC even has the option to run the engine in a 'criple mode.' Now, I do not know the GE-90 specifics, but typically it will give information to the pilots if the engine can turn on the fuel burn impact and available thrust.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
Unlikely; the reliability of engines is most typically measured in In-Flight Shutdowns (IFSD's) per 100,000 flight hours. Given the number of GE90's in service and the rate they rack up hours, it takes many events to make a statistical blip.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84):
The FADEC's do talk to the airplane and the airplane can alter commands to each engine independently. As a result, if an engine fails, the airplane may ask the running engine's FADEC to do something different but I don't think the other FADEC knows why it's being asked.

   It also provides the airframe with information for subsystems. (e.g,. try to predict filter icing before it is an issue and have the airframe react as needed to keep the engines turning).

Quoting gasturbineengr (Reply 85):
The FADEC does not demand thrust, it schedules the engine parameters (N1, fuel, VSV position) in response to a demand.

   But if one engine is having issues, the FADAC will receive airframe information and certain 'maps' change. For example, there are codes that will tell a FADAC the other engine is having issues. Thus the FADAC might be in a regime where if both engines are running well the ignitor is off but if either is having issues the ignitor is turned on, damn the maintenance bill.  
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 86):
the scenario that I had in mind though is that a FADEC will try to protect the engine and as mentioned above this kind of protection may lead to an inadvertent shutdown

Only if it is a catestrophic failure will the FADAC shut the engine down typically. Again, I do not know the 777, but on the A330, the final call is made by the airframe's computers/pilots. The FADAC calculates damage. It tries to minimize the damage. But I have gone through engine logs where the FADAC kept the engine going to the extreme margins as the airframe computers/pilot would not give permission for an engine shutdown.

In that case, the FADAC does what it can: extreme stator settings, ignitor, cut turbine casing cooling to open up tip gaps, even startup fuel flow (some engines will flow more fuel to the bottom two injectors for engine ignition), starting the spark ignitor, allowing turbine inlet temperature to climb into the yellow, run with overheating oil, run with insufficient oil, etc. Some of those settings are done to boost fuel flow for a commanded thrust setting to keep the engine lit (stable thrust). Others to accommodate a defect by allowing a tremendous increase in engine wear. That increased wear scenario sets the diversion limits (with a potential ETOPS impact).

The FADAC will only stop an engine when parameters go past the abort limits (temperature, pressures, vibration, bearing pressure, oil conditions, etc.) Shutting down an engine usually takes pilot command. (Not always, I have seen airframe commended shutdowns and FADAC commanded shutdowns, but they are extremely rare.) The newer FADACs will keep the engine going through engine, pylon, and even wing damaging conditions! But it will demand the aircraft send out a message for the appropriate inspections. (e.g., if engine vibration is so high that the pylon must be inspected during an engine replacement.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineatlengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9376 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):

Lightsaber, appreciate the in-depth explanation.

ATLengineer


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 90, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9062 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 86):
now this would be a minor inconvenience if the other engine is still turning but if it isn't it would make sense for the FADEC on the operational engine to suck it up and allow the potential damage to occur (as long as it wasn't about to throw blades).

I've only ever seen a FADEC actually shut down an engine when it was headed for "throw blades" territory (or the FADEC thought it was). As lightsaber beautifully described, it will do it's darnedest to keep the engine running, even at the expense of massive economic damage. It will only actually end up with a shutdown when the alternative is the engine coming apart.

Tom.


User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

This happened to a Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER with RR engine from a couple of years ago. I imagine something similar happened this time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fredrik Granberg



User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1335 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7943 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 63):

Either some of you know a lot more about this than you are saying, or you are making it up.

Tristar Steve - love the post! Nice to an expert on board.


User currently offlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 814 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7851 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 69):
The plan for the LWC, (it will NOT be a LCC)

Sorry, OT. But what is the 'W' in LWC?


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 33
Reply 94, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7613 times:

Quoting SP90 (Reply 91):
This happened to a Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER with RR engine from a couple of years ago. I imagine something similar happened this time.

The MH was an engine cowling failure. The engine ran throughout the incident.
We changed the D duct and the B777 flew home.

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 50):
Firstly, in the incident pic you linked, the engine was not a GE-90 but a RR Trent 800. Secondly, the MH incident had nothing to do with the RR engine and was caused by delamination of the D-Duct which I believe is a Boeing part.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...0474/

Read the flight article. I was the maint worker at ARN. I had to e mail Flight as they had got it so wrong at first.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5132 posts, RR: 43
Reply 95, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7388 times:

Quoting golfradio (Reply 93):
Sorry, OT. But what is the 'W' in LWC?

The planned leisure carrier will be a Low Wage Carrier, not a Low Cost Carrier. As long as the same management runs it, and as long as they keep giving themselves huge raises and bonuses, it will never be a LCC.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
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...
Air Canada 777 First Flight. posted Thu Mar 8 2007 21:03:49 by SixtySeven
Air Canada Jazz - Major Computer Failure Today? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 14:33:42 by JasYHZ
Am I Flying On A New Air Canada 777-300ER? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 11:41:31 by Gilesdavies
Air Canada 777's Now Loaded In Skeds posted Wed Nov 29 2006 01:29:03 by RP TPA
Air Canada 777/787 Order? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 01:15:55 by ZBBYLW
Air Canada 777? posted Fri Oct 27 2006 19:19:27 by Gabypn1992
Air Canada 777's posted Fri Sep 22 2006 01:12:59 by Jetspaul
Skymark B767 Suffers Uncontained Engine Failure posted Sat Dec 3 2005 19:45:47 by Dogfighter2111
Air Canada B-777 / B-787 Order posted Sun Nov 20 2005 00:36:21 by AC7E7
Uncontained Engine Failure On F100, MD-80, Etc posted Thu Apr 4 2002 19:39:13 by AM744