Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:24 pm

Now that the 777 has been in service over 10 years and compiled a perfect safety record, has any one ever had an in-flight engine shutdown?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Thread starter):
Now that the 777 has been in service over 10 years and compiled a perfect safety record, has any one ever had an in-flight engine shutdown?

There have been a number of such incidents, yes.

[Edited 2007-01-05 14:34:34]
 
mspguy
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:49 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:40 pm

Here's a couple were they had to shut down one.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fredrik Granberg





View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tango3 - Team Ninervictor

If it ain't broke, DON'T touch it!!!!
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:43 pm

NTSB Identification: DCA06WA073
Scheduled 14 CFR Non-U.S., Commercial
Incident occurred Monday, September 18, 2006 in Brisbane, Australia
Aircraft: Boeing 777, registration: 9M-MRM
Injuries: Unavailable
On September 18 at approximately 0420 UTC, a Malaysian Airline Systems B-777-200, registration 9M-MRM, experienced a shutdown of the right engine while about 40 miles northwest of Brisbane, Queensland, in Australia. The engine was restarted and the airplane returned to Brisbane. The incident is being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau


NTSB Identification: DCA05WA042
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Friday, March 11, 2005 in Buenos Aires, Argentina
Aircraft: Boeing B777, registration: N790AN
Injuries: 8 Minor, 201 Uninjured.
On March 11, 2005, American Airlines flight 908, a Boeing B777, N790AN, experienced a right engine fire and aborted the takeoff at about 110 knots at Ezeiza International Airport (EZE), Buenos Aires, Argentina. The 14 crew and 195 passengers performed an emergency evacuation. The incident is being investigated by the Junta de Investigaciones de Accidentes de Aviación Civil (JIAAC), Republic of Argentina.




NTSB Identification: DCA04IA066.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign operation of British Airways
Incident occurred Wednesday, August 11, 2004 in Houston, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2006
Aircraft: Boeing B-777, registration: G-VIID
Injuries: 129 Uninjured.
As the throttles were advanced for takeoff, the flightcrew heard a noise and felt a vibration from the left side of the airplane. As the airplane rotated, the crew received a cockpit warning of LH Eng Vibration - Level 5. During the climb, the crew observed smoke and haze in the cockpit and the cabin crew advised that the cabin was filling with smoke. The flightcrew declared an emergency and made an immediate landing and emergency evacuation. The investigation revealed that a turbine blade in the left engine had failed due to a fatigue crack and the resulting damage caused excessive vibration in the engine. As the engine continued to vibrate, an oil seal failed allowing oil to contaminate the bleed air and create smoke in the cockpit and cabin. The failed blade had been mis-marked with the wrong part number by the manufacturer, which allowed it to remain in service far in excess of it's life limit until the fatigue crack developed.



The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:

the failure of a high pressure turbine blade which damaged an oil seal and allowed smoke to enter the cabin. Contributing to the blade failure was the mis-labeling of the blade's part number by the manufacturer, which allowed the blade to remain in service far in excess of it's life limit.


http://www.ntsb.gov
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
gh123
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:09 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 3):
The failed blade had been mis-marked with the wrong part number by the manufacturer, which allowed it to remain in service far in excess of it's life limit until the fatigue crack developed.

I don't much like the sound of that! At the same time - it proves the most simple of errors have their consequences!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:51 pm

Thanks for these-I assumed there must have been but had't heard of any.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5408
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:02 pm

Didn't UA have to shut an engine down and then established a new record for flying some great distance on one engine? Or am I dreaming that?
 
raggi
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:34 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
Didn't UA have to shut an engine down and then established a new record for flying some great distance on one engine? Or am I dreaming that?

You're not dreaming, it was a UA 772ER enroute from LAX-AKL, or vice versa, shut down one engine and flew on the remaining for I believe 187 minutes or so to HNL. The flight was operated under ETOPS180 rules.


So far the 777LR models have not had an IFSD yet.


raggi
Stick & Rudder
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:30 pm

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 3):
he investigation revealed that a turbine blade in the left engine had failed due to a fatigue crack and the resulting damage caused excessive vibration in the engine. As the engine continued to vibrate, an oil seal failed allowing oil to contaminate the bleed air and create smoke in the cockpit and cabin.

Interesting. So we can see a safety advantage of the bleedless engine: no chance of contaminated bleed air entering the cabin.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
Interesting. So we can see a safety advantage of the bleedless engine: no chance of contaminated bleed air entering the cabin.

The flip side of that is if there is smoke in the cabin, everyone is instantly aware of something very serious wrong, whereas without it the flight crew might delay responding, which could make things worse. I don't recommend substituting smoke for other alarms, however.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14422
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:52 pm

I remember 777 shutdowns from Continental (Pacific) Air France (Russia) and a series on JAL/ANA that nearly made them lose their ETOPS certificate.

Airlines /Boeing have been trying top push ETOPS 330. The FAA/EASA have taken a look at the numbers repeatedly & concluded sofar it was not a good idea.

Problem for Airlines is that with an unscheduled engine shutdown you have an immediate emergency situation & have to put the aircraft down at th nearest airport. Above the oceans/ poles these can be very sober airports. Then there is the issue a GE90 hardly fits any transport aircraft.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:02 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Problem for Airlines is that with an unscheduled engine shutdown you have an immediate emergency situation & have to put the aircraft down at th nearest airport. Above the oceans/ poles these can be very sober airports. Then there is the issue a GE90 hardly fits any transport aircraft.

Wasn't an Air France T7 stranded for a few weeks in Russia last winter for exactly that reason?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:11 am

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 11):
Wasn't an Air France T7 stranded for a few weeks in Russia last winter for exactly that reason?

I'll bet the AN-124 can haul a 777 engine.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5539
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:33 am

Inflight shutdowns seem to be most common on the Trent 800 powered birds. Singapore has had couple, MAS, American, etc. Occasionally, you'll hear of one on United's Pratts, or AF and CO's Generals, but not usually.
Don't get me wrong, I think Rollers are typically some of the best... but still, I believe the numbers indicate more failures (contained, typically) or the Trents than the competitors.
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:59 am

Varig PP-VRA (GE) (nowadays with AM) faced an engine shutdown while running GIG-FRA in January 2006.

Varig PP-VRJ (PW) also faced an engine shutdown closer to SSA.

Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
I'll bet the AN-124 can haul a 777 engine.

Yeah... its the ONLY aircraft (though i'm sure a DreamLifter could) that can carry a GE90 without having to take it apart. A GE-90 can be put into a 747F thru the nose door with "minor dismantlement" according to GE.

BTW- Every 777 ever built has had a In flight engine shutdown... they do them as part of pre-delivery testing here at Boeing.  Wink
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 15):
BTW- Every 777 ever built has had a In flight engine shutdown... they do them as part of pre-delivery testing here at Boeing.

Good point-perhaps I should have said unscheduled inflight shutdown. The AN-225 could do it, too.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
Good point-perhaps I should have said unscheduled inflight shutdown. The AN-225 could do it, too.

Yeah i know... i just had to throw that in there.

Good point on the 225. Being that the An 225 and 124 share the same fues (just longer). The AN225 never brings us parts here at Boeing (Volga 124's drop them off) it slipped my mind. It would fit though.
KPAE via KBVY
 
DC8FanJet
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:25 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:25 am

If I recall correctly, the UA shutdown was AKL-LAX, and they diverted to Kaui as it was closest airport. Took some doing to get a replacement engine there.
 
Morvious
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:27 am

Quoting Gh123 (Reply 4):
I don't much like the sound of that! At the same time - it proves the most simple of errors have their consequences!

Thats with everything in life isn't it?
With that blade someone made a mistake. A pretty big one but therefor we are Humans
Atleast that is always better then someone knowing what they are doing wrong but let the jet takeoff anyway just to "safe" money instead of lives.
(Air Transat or Alaska Airlines MD83 crash to name a few)

Quoting Raggi (Reply 7):
So far the 777LR models have not had an IFSD yet.

Not so special if you look at the operation hours. But then again, the plane can handle it. Just an extra landing and takeoff in the T7, who doesn't want that  Smile.
have a good day,

HereThen
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:31 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):

I'll bet the AN-124 can haul a 777 engine

The GE aviation website advertises the GE90 as being able to be transported in a 747 freighter. I have always found it odd that people claim the GE 90 so hard to transport, when GE themselves makes this claim.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175/190, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:49 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 15):
A GE-90 can be put into a 747F thru the nose door with "minor dismantlement" according to GE.

You have to remove the fan module from the core. The engine was designed to this would be an easy operation.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):
The GE aviation website advertises the GE90 as being able to be transported in a 747 freighter.

It will also fit in the 777F. (Fan module off in both cases)

Incidentally, there have been no IFSD's of a GE90-110B/115B since EIS in 2nd Q, '04
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
ultrapig
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:04 am

when there is an inflight shutdown:

1. Can the plane maintain its existing speed by increase power on the remaining engine?

2. Can it maintain the same altitude?

3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:08 am

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
when there is an inflight shutdown:

1. Can the plane maintain its existing speed by increase power on the remaining engine?

2. Can it maintain the same altitude?

3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

1. No...
2. Not 35000ft+
3. Yes... you won't hear an engine on the side that is turned off... and if you are paying attention that aircraft will be slightly yawed.
KPAE via KBVY
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
1. Can the plane maintain its existing speed by increase power on the remaining engine?

2. Can it maintain the same altitude?

1. No
2. No

The loss of altitude and airspeed are calculated into ETOPS allowances.

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

They would probably notice the aircraft descending, and the flight crew would likely inform them of the need to divert.

Whether the engine failure would be noticeable varies from incident to incident. CO had an engine failure over the Pacific in which the engine health monitor noticed dropping engine oil levels. To avoid damaging the engine, the crew shut-down the engine well before it actually failed.

In other cases, I believe an EK 777 lost an engine in an explosive manner that would have been very noticeable to the passengers.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:25 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Airlines /Boeing have been trying top push ETOPS 330. The FAA/EASA have taken a look at the numbers repeatedly & concluded sofar it was not a good idea.

Are you forgetting that Airbus is developing the A350 to ETOPS 330 standards?

I know of no airline that has yet lobbied for ETOPS 330, as there are only a handful of routes that need such allowances. Boeing performed all the necessary testing (flawlessly) during 777LR certification in the event that a customer ever desired the capability in the future. If an airline wants ETOPS 330 approval, it would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis at that time.

Your claim that the FAA/ESAS has concluded that ETOPS 330 is "a bad idea" is your personal inference, not a statement of policy.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Problem for Airlines is that with an unscheduled engine shutdown you have an immediate emergency situation & have to put the aircraft down at th nearest airport.

Statistics clearly show quads divert more often than twins due to mechanical failure.

Diversions are very costly events no matter what aircraft type is involved, and airlines prefer to avoid them altogether. The obsolesces of the quad platform for all but the heaviest VLA is no surprise.

[Edited 2007-01-05 23:26:46]
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:29 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):

Problem for Airlines is that with an unscheduled engine shutdown you have an immediate emergency situation & have to put the aircraft down at th nearest airport. Above the oceans/ poles these can be very sober airports. Then there is the issue a GE90 hardly fits any transport aircraft.

Keesje - someone who believes Airbus does no wrong, I'd think you'd be in in support of extended ETOPS certifications, i'd invite you to think further ahead to when Airbus too wants ETOPS 330 for their A350-900R...

GE90 hardly fits in any aircraft? The core and fan modules are easily seperable, allowing it to be carried on A NUMBER of different large cargo aircraft, similar to any other large engine. If the big PW4000, CF6, or Trent goes out on an A330, you likewise need a large cargo aircraft to transport that too, so yes, only a few aircraft can carry a fully assembled GE90, but there isn't really much reason to carry one fully assembled anyhow.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
I'll bet the AN-124 can haul a 777 engine.

Fully assembled.... but you don't need to transport a GE90 fully assembled, when they designed it, they knew it was huge, and made the fan and core modules easily separable to make transportation easier.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Quoting Beech19 (Reply 15):
A GE-90 can be put into a 747F thru the nose door with "minor dismantlement" according to GE.

You have to remove the fan module from the core. The engine was designed to this would be an easy operation.

Indeed, and it has proven to be so for the GE90.

Nearly every ETOPS twin jet has suffered an engine failure, and to date, single engine failures have caused NO crashes of ETOPS aircraft.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3938
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

The bigger question is will the passengers notice if both engines are shut down? Big grin
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:31 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 26):
Fully assembled.... but you don't need to transport a GE90 fully assembled, when they designed it, they knew it was huge, and made the fan and core modules easily separable to make transportation easier.

That is correct... you don't NEED to but when Volga-Dnepr delivers a rush shipment to us here at KPAE its fully assembled. Cause they can...  Smile
KPAE via KBVY
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3694
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:37 am

Quoting MSPGUY (Reply 2):
Here's a couple were they had to shut down one.



View Large View Medium

Photo © Fredrik Granberg

Good try, but the MH B777 engine was not shut down. It was still running when it taxied onto the stand.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:45 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 28):

That is correct... you don't NEED to but when Volga-Dnepr delivers a rush shipment to us here at KPAE its fully assembled. Cause they can... Smile

Well, I mean, if you happen to have an Antonov 124 cargo aircraft at your disposal, hahahaha.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 597
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
Statistics clearly show quads divert more often than twins due to mechanical failure.

Very true. In fact just last night my dad was recounting a story of going from SFO on an early 747SP to HKG. One of the engines "coked" up at 430 and had to be shut down. They landed in NRT and then continued in the same airplane.

I noticed that nobody on this thread has been on a 777 when they shut one down but I'll be one of you has been on 4 holer that did so.
...are we there yet?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Topic Author
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:47 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):

Statistics clearly show quads divert more often than twins due to mechanical failure.

I know from my piston engine experience that crashes due to engine failure are actually more common on twins than singles, which flies in the face of popular perception. The reason is simple: twice as many engines=twice the chance for something to break. Unfortunately, the state of pilot skill in light twins is not what it should be; while they are all capable of continuing (except at takeoff) on one engine, the margin of error is reduced essentially to zero, and too many pilots have proved unequal to the task. But the primary logic of more engines=more chance of failure still holds.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15147
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:08 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
You have to remove the fan module from the core. The engine was designed to this would be an easy operation.

It's not a matter of "having to" but rather it's an important design feature.

The GE90 (and I assume the others?) are designed to be broken down into two simple pieces, core and fan.

If you have a fan failure, you only need to transport the fan section. If you have a core failure, you only need to transport a new core. And a new core fits in a lot of freighters.

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

I was recently in a 757 with an engine shut down, and no, we could not tell at all. The only indications were that before they shut it down, they cycled the power on the IFE and reading lights. But this was not something you would connect with an engine problem. (Turns out they were likely resetting circuits to see if the engine oil indicator was faulty).

When the engine was turned off, we did not notice any difference in flight nor any quick decent. Because the #1 engine was cranked up higher with #2 off, the noise levels were pretty much the same, not enough to notice, and even though I was sitting right near #1, it did not sound any louder.

We only knew about the engine being off because a bit afterward, the captain informed us of the diversion and what to expect...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:10 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
But the primary logic of more engines=more chance of failure still holds.

Oh not this again!!

I think we were arguing about this when I first joined A.net 8+ years ago.

Twice the number of engines does not equal twice the chance of failure.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:16 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
I know from my piston engine experience that crashes due to engine failure are actually more common on twins than singles, which flies in the face of popular perception

I would counter that:

1. Pistons are not large commercial airliners.
2. There are no single-engined airliners.


Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
The reason is simple: twice as many engines=twice the chance for something to break.

The same holds true when comparing twins versus quads. Since regulatory bodies are very unlikely to allow single-engined airliners in the conceivable future, twins are the most efficient configuration for today's airliners.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:55 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
I know from my piston engine experience that crashes due to engine failure are actually more common on twins than singles, which flies in the face of popular perception.

That is absolutely not true! What appears to be true is that if a twin crashes after an engine failure there is a much higher probability of it being a fatal crash. It is not possible to know the number of times that twin-engine piston planes have an engine shutdown and land safely. That is not a reportable event, like it is on a jet plane. If you research the issue, it is assumed/estimated that the vast majority, 99.9%+ of twin-piston engine failures in flight result in an uneventful and safe landing. But as I said, it is a non-reportable event, and anyone that tells you they know hard numbers is just mis-informed.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
when there is an inflight shutdown:

1. Can the plane maintain its existing speed by increase power on the remaining engine?

2. Can it maintain the same altitude?

3. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

1 - Sure. If the plane is on approach or flying below 10,000 ft or in class B airspace, speed is restricted to 250KTs anyway, so of course it can maintain the existing speed in that situation. Can it maitain M0.84 in cruise on a single engine, usually not.

2 - Sure. If the engine failure happened below 30Kft or the plane was lightly loaded (e.g. towards the end of a flight or fueld for a short hop like GIG-GRU or otherwise light) it would have no problem maintaining altitude.

3 - Perhaps. If it was a precautionary shutdown, towards the end of a flight it is very unlikely that they'd notice or be told. If it was a hard/destructive failure during climbout on a loaded plane, there would be plenty of cues and the announcement of an unscheduled landing.

As everything else in aviation, there are few hard and fast rules. The real answer is "it depends".
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:08 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
I remember 777 shutdowns from Continental (Pacific) Air France (Russia) and a series on JAL/ANA that nearly made them lose their ETOPS certificate.

JAL nor NH ETOPS certs were never even close to being in jeopardy. NH Had and IFSD on a 777-300A on a non ETOPS flights that did not effect the pool of ETOPS 207 certified ships. PW and JL/ANA worked together on correcting a hot section problem that could have potentially led to engine failures in flight. A total of 81 engines received upgraded HPT and related parts. NH has never had an IFSD during a 777 ETOPS flight.

Just to set the record straight...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Twice the number of engines does not equal twice the chance of failure.

You are correct - but not for the reasons you believe, I suspect.

With ETOPS it is actually MORE than twice. Pick a 767 and a 744 (basically use the same engines) or a 787-8 and a 748 (again basically the same engine except for bleed) operated by the same airline, with the same maintenance procedures, on the same routes. If the 767 and 787 are maintained and operated to ETOPS, than the incidence (chance as you put it) of an unscheduled in-flight shutdown, per flight hour would be MORE than twice as high on the 747 than on the 767/787.

Without ETOPS it would be about twice as high, it is not exaclty twice as high, as there are some rare in-flight shutdown causes (usually afcting all engines) that are somewhat independent of the number of engines. These included fuel contamination, ash ingestion when flying though a volcanic eruption, hail/bird ingestion, etc. But even in this case, if you coun't losing 2 engines on a 747 as two incidents, the number will remain pretty close to 2x the rate.

If you believe the number is significantly different than 2, can you share with us what the theorectical number is?
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:20 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 39):

If you believe the number is significantly different than 2, can you share with us what the theorectical number is?

When I was in college, I was really good at calculating probabilities. I haven't used that stuff in years though. I'll see if I can dig up a post from 1998.  Smile
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:16 pm

Lets try with hypotetical numbers:

You fly a 744 once daily from JFK to LHR and back with 4 PWModelA.
I fly a 763ER once daily on the same route with 2 of the same engines.
(lets assume that they both fly at the same speed - the shutwon rate per flight hour won't be dependent on this assumption, but it makes it easier for people to follow).

Lets say that on average the round-trip fligh takes 16-hours, block to block, and that you are able to perform all scheduled maintenance on the 8-off hours, so you fly every day. Obviously we assume that the same engine maintenance procedures and standards are used on both planes - lets ignore ETOPs higher standards for now.

Lets say that the in-flight, unscheduled shutdown rate for the engines is 1 for every 16,000 hours (I know this is low). So one engine will be shutdown every 1000 days in our example.

If I fly these planes for their usefule life - lets assume NW not SG  Smile - say 30 years or approximately 10,000 days. What are the shutdown rates that I'll see on the two planes?

The 747 will have 40 unscheduled in-flight engine individual shutdown events. The 767 will have 20 unschedule shutdown events. Twice as many.

But weight. You are correct that there is a small chance that two or more (in the case of the 747) engines will shutdown in the same flight, therefore altering the result. What are the chances that more than one engine will shutdown on a single 767 flight (PB given A + PB Given A)? 8/16000 * 4/16000 * 2 or one in 4 million So in reality, 19.96 flights will see a shutdown event during the 30 years on the 767. For the 747, the math works out to 39.9 flights experiencing a shutdown. So 39.9/19.96=1.998998 times which is pretty darn close to 2.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:02 pm

Nice math.

point well taken.

it'd be interesting to see the rates of engine shutdowns on various twin engined aircraft... from DC-9 to 777.

Anyone know where to find this data?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:28 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):

Problem for Airlines is that with an unscheduled engine shutdown you have an immediate emergency situation & have to put the aircraft down at th nearest airport.

An inflight shutdown is not an emergency, it is an abnormal. In a twin diversion would be to the nearest suitable, not nearest airport. On a trijet or quad they may even proceed to their destination.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13):
Inflight shutdowns seem to be most common on the Trent 800 powered birds. ............... but still, I believe the numbers indicate more failures (contained, typically) or the Trents than the competitors.

The Trent has the larger market share, they have had a known problem which was fixed.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):

Incidentally, there have been no IFSD's of a GE90-110B/115B since EIS in 2nd Q, '04

They ere not incident/problem free, the FAA emergency AD issued last year was as a result of number of uncommanded rollbacks on takeoff or initial climb. Some EY aircraft have already had double engines changes.

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
1. Can the plane maintain its existing speed by increase power on the remaining engine?

2. Can it maintain the same altitude?

Depends on the aircraft, on a 330 a descent to the around FL250, speed is up to the pilots. A340-600 engine failure at FL370 at mid weights would not need a descent, just a slight speed decrease of about 3%.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
Statistics clearly show quads divert more often than twins due to mechanical failure.

I would love to see them.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 41):

The 747 will have 40 unscheduled in-flight engine individual shutdown events. The 767 will have 20 unschedule shutdown events. Twice as many.

A 747-100 would have a higher shutdown rate than a 767-400, and a 747-400ERF will have a lower shutdown rate than a 767-200ER.

The technology in the engine plays a bigger part in the IFSD rate than the number of engines installed. The shutdown rate on the 747-400 is much lower than the 747-200.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2382
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:32 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
The reason is simple: twice as many engines=twice the chance for something to break.

Yes, but the most important thing is not so much the loss of an engine, but the total loss of power. Say for instance you compare a certain CF6 model fitted to both a 767 and a 747, and imagine that the probability of an engine failure is 0.001.

My statistics is very rusty, but IIRC, the chance of an engine failure on the 767 is 0.002 (0.001+0.001), where as the chance of an engine failure on the 747 is 0.004 (0.001+0.001+0.001+0.001).

The chance of total power loss on the 767 is 0.000001 (0.001^2), where as the chance of total power loss on the 747 is 0.000000000001 (0.001^4). Thus, the 747 has twice the chance of having an engine failure, but 1,000,000 times less chance of a total power loss ( provided there is not a single point failure such as contaminated fuel or volcanic ash ingestion).

I hope my statistics is not so rusty that the above example is completely wrong  blush !

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:43 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 42):
Anyone know where to find this data?

You can search the NTSB data - jet engine in flight shutdowns must be reported via an incident report - but it is rather painfull.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
awthompson
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:54 pm

Here are quite a number of further Boeing 777 engine failures/major incidents, few of which are mentioned above. I am sure that there are still more (outside the USA) which we have heard little about.

2001 January 30, Emirates A6-EMM

Not an in flight shut down, but could equally have been.
Flight 069 Melbourne to Singapore aborted its take-off run on runway 16 at low speed as a result of a failure within the left (No.1) engine. Although the failure was associated with a large compressor surge within the engine, no subsequent fire developed and the aircraft was able to safely return to the terminal on the other engine. Failure of the Rolls Royce RB211 Trent 892 engine was a result of the release of a single blade from the low-pressure compressor (fan) rotor disk. The blade release caused extensive damage to the remainder of the fan and the intake shroud, however the event was virtually contained. The only escape of debris from the engine was small, low energy fragments, causing minor damage to the fuselage and the opposite engine.

2002 May 7, Air Europe Italy

Flying from Mauritius to Milan, one of Air Europe Italy's two Boeing 777-200's suffered a major engine oil leak necessitating engine shut down and descent from FL310 to FL180. The flight had to continue for 90 minutes on ETOPS to Mombassa for an emergency landing. Two smaller Volare aircraft were dispatched to return the 348 passengers to Milan.

2004 January 4, Continental Airlines

Flight CO 006 from Narita to Houston (GE90 powered Boeing 777) suffered oil loss from a starter motor mid pacific. The defective engine was shut down and aircraft diverted to Midway / Sand Island Airport. 279 passengers and 15 crew on board.

2004 March 19, United Airlines, N783UA

Suffered an in flight compressor stall and diverted to Yellowknife. I do not know whether the engine was actually shut down or not but the results were the same; the aircraft had to land at the nearest available airport and remained grounded for a number of days before a replacement engine could be transported by road.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © UAFlyer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Blewett



2004 August 25, Singapore Airlines, 9V-SYB

On take off from runway 34 at Melbourne, the left engine surged at around V1. The take off was continued and the engine continued to suffer multiple surges. The engine was shutdown in flight, fuel was dumped and the aircraft returned approx one hour later on one engine. Examination of the defective engine found that several High Pressure Compressor casing liners had eroded to the point of reducing the efficiency of the HPC.


2004 December 01, Cathay Pacific

CX751 from Bangkok to Mumbai to CX751 (Boeing 777-300) turned back to BKK at 18.57L Dec 1 after being airborne at 17.58L. The inner surface of the number one engine left hand D duct collapsed causing separation of a section of the duct structure. A part of significant size departed the engine striking a car on the ground near Bangkok. The engine was NOT shut down in flight, this is similar to the more recent Malaysian incident.

2005 December 17 ?? Air France

A Boeing 777-300 suffered an engine failure over Russia when routing from the far east back to Paris and diverted into Novosibirsk ??. Aircraft grounded for a few days. Passengers flown back to Paris on various smaller aircraft. It is very hard to find information on this one but it made the news in the UK at the time. Sites which provided details at the time have now been wiped. MORE INFO ON THIS ONE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

2006 June 4, Korean Air

Flight KE 621 operating Incheon to Manila had an uncontained engine failure on take off with debris penetrating the fuselage. Returned to Incheon.
 
User avatar
777wt
Posts: 828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:45 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:04 pm

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 22):
. Can the passengers (not talking about a professional pilot) notice the difference?

The 777 has a thrust asysemestry (sp?) compenstation which adds in a lil bit of rudder to compenstate for loss of thrust from one engine.

During the early stages, it was so effective that the pilots couldn't notice a uncommanded engine shutdown.
 
User avatar
777wt
Posts: 828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:45 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:06 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):
In other cases, I believe an EK 777 lost an engine in an explosive manner that would have been very noticeable to the passengers.

That was a A330 with RR's. A fan blade shot out of the engine cowl.
 
User avatar
lapper
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 6:42 am

RE: 777 Engine Shutdowns

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:12 pm

Hasn't an American Airlines 777 been stuck in India over Christmas due to engine trouble? A friend's brother has been out there for a number of weeks waiting on parts for it.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos