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.)
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.
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.