Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1998 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 20652 times:
The only source I had for the moment is this, if someone has more detailed info will be very welcomed.Will be very nice to learn more about this incident, UEF are not so common and certainly are a dangerous situation for the aircraft's integrity.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9299 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10349 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 5):
It's not the first time it's happened at EK though... Here's a pic from a similar incident that occurred in DXB in 2006 (not of this incident):
This is another report of this current incident
"Emirates airline crash landed at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport in Lusaka at about mid night.
It is not clear what caused the accident but initial reports indicate that the plane had a tyre burst and slipped into the bush.
There are no reports of casualties so far but sources say the plane has been extensively damaged.
Kenneth Kaunda Airport international recently experienced unprecedented power black-outs that endangered airlines and travellers.
Emirates Airlines is one of the most credible airlines in the world.
President Micheal Sata recently used the same airline on his trip to the far East. "
Given the location of the incident, I think it will be some time until we know what has happened. It is almost like people have already taken the picture you have posted and think it is from this incident. This is what EK said
"Emirates flight EK714 bound for Dubai returned to Lusaka airport last night shortly after take off, due to a technical issue.
The aircraft landed normally, taxied to the stand and passengers disembarked in the usual way.
Passengers were accommodated in hotels and have now been re-booked on alternative flights with Emirates or other airlines.
The safety of our passengers and crew is of utmost importance and will not be compromised.”
Please send us your contact number or call me on the number below as soon as possible. Let us know if you need any more information.
We appreciate your co-operation.
PR Manager (The Americas & Africa) | Corporate Communications"
Quoting delta88 (Reply 10): Has anyone noticed that Rolls Royce seems to be having alot of engine problems lately?
No, nothing higher than other engine manufacturers that I am aware of. The particular Trent 772 engine is very reliable, it has a very high reliability level from what understand on the global installed fleet, it is a very popular engine on the A330.
Quoting delta88 (Reply 10): Just a thought, correct me if im Wrong or you disagree!
I do not agree, most engine failures or shutdowns do not make the news at all.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Here is a photo of the aircraft in question, sourced from this article.
Every report (except the one you posted which has the plane crashing through the bush and geting "extensively damaged") is reporting uncontained engine failure. I'm not advocating that we trust everything that the media says, but all the evidence suggests that there was an uncontained failure of some sort.
dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1868 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8242 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 4): Might be worth hanging back on that suggestion for a while, the Trent 772 engine design sees a lot of hours every day, a very reliable engine
Failed to see your logic. Are you saying a reliable engine could not possibly have engine failures? The CF6 was a very reliable engine for its time, but we had the United Sioux City DC-10 crash in 1989. The JT8D was the workhorse of the industy, but we had the 1996 uncontained engine failure on a Delta MD-88 in Pensacola, Florida. The RB211-524 was also a very reliable engine, but Qantas had an uncontained engine failure on a 747-400 August of last year.
kq747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6551 times:
I totally agree with delta88. The last few years have seen more incidents involving RR engines than I should think is acceptable. Not to say that other engines don't have problems, but the most noteworthy incidents (IMHO) have involved Rolls Royce.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26219 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6435 times:
AC also had some kind of engine failure on a R-R-powered A330-300 at YYC a couple of days ago. It was just starting the takeoff run to FRA. Excerpt from the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports.
ACA 844 was in position for departure on Runway 16 at Calgary and cleared for takeoff when the crew advised that the #2 engine failed and they would have to return to Apron 1; no ARFF or assistance was requested. Several minutes later the crew advised that they may have left some FOD on the runway from the engine failure. Two departures were delayed approximately 10 minutes pending a runway inspection which was negative for FOD. TSB report to follow.
traindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6035 times:
You cannot comment on engine failures increasing or a problem with one manufacture using anecdotes. You have to look at how many engines of a particular type are being used, number of hours flown and then figure out an incident rate. If you do that you will find the result to be very low (fraction of a percent) indeed.
The other piece of data needed is the type of failure, i.e., where in the engine, core, compressor, fan blade, bearing etc. Then you must analyze the "why" of the incident, i.e., wear and tear, manufacturing defect, improper maintenance etc.
Once that is done then you can make educated statements about failure rates and manufacturers.
Alnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5990 times:
From a cell phone picture it is very hard to tell if it is un-contained? Damaged fan blades at takeoff thrust may come forward out of the nacelle even peppering the fuselage with debris. It is still considered contained because it did not come out of the fan shroud. This can happen on all aircraft.
It's funny how these sort of comments are never put forward when GEnx ('s) start spewing engine parts out of the back. Multiple times in fact. Or when four separate CF6-45 have uncontained engine failures.* And I don't recall seeing GE's credibility questioned when a GE90 decided to chuck debris upon the areas below.**
If the standards of RR engines were unacceptable in any way then they would not be certified at all. Let alone certified to ETOPS standards which, among other things, requires consistent reliability.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5715 times:
Quoting kq747 (Reply 16): The last few years have seen more incidents involving RR engines than I should think is acceptable.
The last few years have seen more *publically reported* incidents involving RR engines. That's a very very different thing than more incidents. The actual rate of engine accidents vastly exceeds the public reporting frequency because the vast majority of engine incidents don't make the media.
Also, the "acceptable" rate of engine failures is well established by the regulators. Given that they haven't grounded RR, or even remotely talked about it, I would suggest your threshold of acceptable is out of alignment with industry.
Keep in mind that the global fleet is growing fairly quickly (retirements don't even come close to keeping pace with deliveries). As a result, a constant failure rate per flight hour results in an ever increasing failure rate with calendar time.
md80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2780 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5671 times:
Quoting U2380 (Reply 20): It's funny how these sort of comments are never put forward when GEnx ('s) start spewing engine parts out of the back.
Not from me they don't. I am getting tired of all these newfangled, ultralight, ultra large, ultra expensive power plants shedding hot and high speed alloys everywhere. These are engineering failures from whatever manufacturer. There isn't enough margin for error being built into these beasts ... it's being whittled away to save additional weight. It's not like axial turbine engines are something new ... they've been around for 60 years now. Blasting parts everywhere should be something that -never- happens ever with our current level of materials, metallurgical, and manufacturing knowledge these days.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 13096 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5605 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 23): EK have an exemplary safety record, I think to question the integrity of their maintenance procedures is nonsensical
There's very little to suggest their maintenance is anything other than good. However, given they've very nearly written off two fully loaded A340s, their overall safety record is not quite as "exemplary" as you're suggesting.
kq747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5430 times:
Quoting traindoc (Reply 18): You cannot comment on engine failures increasing or a problem with one manufacture using anecdotes. You have to look at how many engines of a particular type are being used, number of hours flown and then figure out an incident rate. If you do that you will find the result to be very low (fraction of a percent) indeed.
Of course we all know that flying is statistically the safest form of transport as percent. This does not mean that we should take such incidents lightly and more over RR shouldn't. (Not that I think they do). I'm saying that the totality of the circumstances including previous incidents does put a little worry in my mind, which honestly as a regular traveler, I've never experienced.
Quoting U2380 (Reply 20): If the standards of RR engines were unacceptable in any way then they would not be certified at all. Let alone certified to ETOPS standards which, among other things, requires consistent reliability.
If that were true then all the RR powered A380's that had to undergo inspections would not have been flying in the first place. I'm not saying that they have to meet 100% perfection but the issue was very serious and speaking as an engineer, I can definitely understand some things cannot always be tested for.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21): The last few years have seen more *publically reported* incidents involving RR engines. That's a very very different thing than more incidents. The actual rate of engine accidents vastly exceeds the public reporting frequency because the vast majority of engine incidents don't make the media.
I do realise that most incidents dont make headlines unless the results are very dire, but on this forum we pretty much know about every incident since we as a.netters check sites like the aviation herald regularly. I'm definitely not referring to just the well publicised incidents.
: Modern jet engines are the most highly engineered objects created by the human race. And the safety record of the latest ones makes the records of th
: I am not taking these incidents lightly. Nor am I minimizing the risks. However, one cannot say that we are seeing an increase in these incidents with
: No I am not saying thy cannot have failures, just that the worldwide population of the Trent 772 engines are probably doing in excess of 10,000 hrs a
: A Thomas Cook Airlines R-R-powered A330-200 en route from LGW to SFB (Orlando Sanford), had an engine problem requiring a shutdown and diversion to KE
: It looks like it's just in the area of the fan itself. Judging off the picture of the 2006 incident, it looks like this is a Trent 700 problem, or wer