Hi A.Netters:

Anyone heard about this?

http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/terror-...planes-engine-fails-over-atlantic/

Pretty scary, but great that twin engines can fly with one of them working.

Flyenthu

[Edited 2014-08-09 07:07:30]

Wow $181, where do they come up with that?

Yep, that just about compensates for all of the hassles!  

I presume they were given a round GBP amount and the NY Post helpfully converted it to $181

Quote: Terror-filled flight as plane’s engine fails over Atlantic

Media sensationalism at its worst. By the way did anyone notice the picture in the article is a 757?

Saw this over a day a go. Also saw QR had a similar issue with a 787.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4788591c&opt=0

That is a number of GEnX engines that have suffered failures - all must be quite new engines.

We have been flying over long stretches of water, with widebody twins, for almost thirty years now.

Offhand I would be curious what the rate of inflight shutdowns have been on EROPS flights, on all types. Is it any more unpleasant on a 787 than on a 767-300?

The real issue is the chance of the other engine failing. How do the GE and RR engines on the 787 stack up vs the tried and true GECF-6 or the PW4000 series?

This is not good, I do not like that the 787 Dreamliner is having so much trouble, but most wide bodies have teething problems. I do not think that woman should pass judgement on the 787, remember both the 747 and 777 had teething problems.

I think a.net trivializes the serious problems that plague the 787 program.

I'm sorry but these are not teething problems. These are serious issues and the reliability of the 787 is abysmal.

Don't give me that 99.3 or 99.5% dispatch reliability BS.

Only 170 jets flying and weekly diverts and turn backs.

Aug 9th Thomson Engine shutdown
Aug 8th Qatar Engine oil issue
Aug 4th Norwegian flaps wouldn't retract
Jul 13th LAN loss of cabin pressure.
Jul 6th ANA Engine anti ice issue

The list goes on.

40 serious incidences in 2 years affecting critical systems.

3 severe hydraulic leaks, 3 flap/slats issues. 3 landing gear retraction/ issues, 5 engine oil consumption/leak issues. 4 Cracked windshields. 2 pressurization issues. Not to mention the battery issues.

In the same time period A321s had the same number of incidents there are ~900 A321s flying.
The A380 has only has 11 incidences over the same time period. 60 over its life span and as far as I can tell the majority of them were less severe.

Boeing rushed this project and it's going to bite them back hard in the coming years.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 19): The A380 has only has 11 incidences over the same time period. 60 over its life span and as far as I can tell the majority of them were less severe.

Except for that whole engine blowing up and cracked wing thing.

A380 Incidents

I count more than 11 YTD alone, let alone the last two years, and there are fewer A380's in service than 787's.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, because I'm not an expert on aviation incidents/accidents, but I would refute the notion that the 787 is the death trap the media makes it out to be.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 18): This is not good,

It's just an engine failure, it happens on 777s and A330s as well. The difference being, nobody writes about 777s and A330s anymore.

The only potential difference is that there are a few happening. This could just be a random cluster - it happens. Alternatively there could be an underlying issue to find and rectify. I am sure GE are not taking this lightly - nor are they panicking. That is not required either.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 19): 5 engine oil consumption/leak issues

How are these engine problems related to Boeing "rushing the project?" Last time I checked, RR and GE were responsible for the engines that went on the 787. They designed them. They built them. If similar problems pop up on engines mounted to A350's, are you going to blame Airbus?

Quoting savethequads (Reply 19): Boeing rushed this project and it's going to bite them back hard in the coming years.

How so? The project was announced in 2003 and entered service in 2011 which is a 8 year difference. By comparison, the 777X project was announced in November 2013 which expected to enter into service in 2020 which is a 7 year difference. Are you going to say that Boeing is rushing the 777X project too?

Here's another one for you. Since your name is "savethequads", the 747 was announced in 1966 and entered into service in 1970, does that mean Boeing rushed the 747 project?

Quoting savethequads (Reply 19): Only 170 jets flying and weekly diverts and turn backs.

Engine shutdowns diversions are common on all types for many reasons. They just don't make the news very often.

A few random excerpts from Transport Canada daily occurrence reports since 2013 (there are dozens). Worldwide there must be many hundreds of similar events. Amazing the first one made it on only 7 engines!

A United States Air Force Boeing B-52 (DOOM13) from Royal Air Force Fairford (EGVA) to Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, SD (KRCA) declared an emergency. Engine was shut down due to low pressure. The aircraft continued to destination. Left Canadian airspace at 1210Z. No impact on operations.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13W0062: The Delta Air Lines Boeing 767-300, registration N194DN, operating as flight DAL614, was approximately 250 nm north of Edmonton, AB (CYEG) en route from Paris/ Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) to Seattle, WA (KSEA) when the crew declared an emergency due to low oil pressure in the No. 1 engine. The engine (Pratt & Whitney PW4000) was shut down and the flight diverted to Edmonton without further incident. Maintenance examination found evidence that the oil pump had failed. The engine will be replaced.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13A0112: The US Airways Boeing 757-200, registration N935UW, was operating as flight AWE723 from Dublin, Ireland (EIDW) to Philadelphia, PA (KPHL). While in cruise, the crew observed the right engine oil quantity begin to slowly decrease. About 270 nm NE of Goose Bay, NL (CYYR), when the oil quantity reached 2 quarts, the crew followed the quick reference handbook procedures and carried out a precautionary shut down of the right engine. The crew declared an emergency with ATC and requested a diversion to CYYR where the flight landed without further incident. Maintenance discovered a crack in the oil return line to the gearbox. The line was replaced and all required inspections were completed. The aircraft was returned to service.

A Delta Air Lines Boeing 747 400 (DAL159) from Detroit, MI (KDTW) to Seoul/ Incheon (RKSI) declared an emergency via controller-pilot data link communications (CPDLC) due to the shut down of one of their engines. The pilot advised ATC they were unable to maintain their present altitude of FL320 and were cleared to FL280. The aircraft diverted to Minneapolis/ St Paul, MN (KMSP). No other impact to operations.
UPDATE: TSB Report#A14C0015: The Delta Air Lines Boeing 747-400, registration N664US, operating at DAL159, was en route from Detroit, MI (KDTW) to Incheon, Korea (RKSI). In cruise flight at FL320 about 185NM southeast of Resolute Bay, NU (CYRB), the #3 engine (P&W PW4000 Series) oil temperature rose out of limits and the oil pressure dropped to zero. The crew shut down the engine, declared an emergency and diverted to Minneapolis, MN (KMSP).

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13A0080: The World Airways McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (registration N383WA) was en route from Munich (EDDM) to New York, NY (KJFK). While in cruise the crew noted depleting oil pressure on the #3 engine (GE CF6-80 SERIES). The engine was shut down as a precaution and the aircraft continued to destination. No emergency was declared. Maintenance replaced a leaking hydraulic seal and leak tested the engine releasing the aircraft to service.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14A0044: The Finnair Airbus A330-300 (FIN5, registration OH-LTS) was enroute from Helsinki (EFHK) to New York, NY (KJFK). While in cruise flight abeam Gander, NL (CYQX) the crew requested climb from FL380 to FL400. The aircraft responded to the request but the #2 engine thrust fell to 54.9%. Engine #2 did not respond to thrust lever movement; the aircraft descended to FL300 as it was unable to maintain a higher altitude. After consulting with aircraft technicians and attempting resets the engine still did not respond and the decision was made to divert to Halifax, NS (CYHZ). On approach the #2 engine was shut down. The aircraft landed uneventfully. Mechanical inspection found the PS3 tube fractured near the Transfer Gearbox. The PS3 sense line was replaced, the General Electric GE CF6-80E1A4/B engine test run was satisfactory and the aircraft was released to service.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14A0036: The Delta Air Lines Boeing 767-300 (DAL271, registration N188DN) was enroute from Paris/ Charles de Gaulle (LFPG) to Newark, NJ (KEWR). While enroute and 125 NM west of Goose Bay, NL (CYYR) the pilot declared an emergency due to an electronic engine control failure and a left exhaust gas temperature (EGT) indication in the red on the Pratt and Whitney Model PW4060 engine. Engine power was reduced however the left engine EGT remained in the red. The left engine was shut down and the crew diverted to Goose Bay where they landed safely. Maintenance examined the engine and found metal in the tailpipe, the engine will be replaced.

At 1735Z in vicinity of N59/W060, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 400 (N836MH/ DAL41) from London/ Heathrow (EGLL) to Minneapolis/ St Paul, MN (KMSP) declared an emergency because of a gear box problem. Shut engine down and diverted to Goose Bay, NL (CYYR). Requested ARFF on ground at CYYR. Landed at 1832Z. No other traffic affected.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14C0017: The SkyWest Airlines Bombardier CL-600-2B19 (CRJ 200), N976SW, Flt SKW5251, had departed Regina, SK (CYQR) for Chicago, IL (KORD). Shortly after take off the crew received a "L REV UNLOCKED" caution message. The crew performed the QRH checklist but were unable to stow the reverser. There were no apparent aerodynamic effects. In accordance with the checklist the crew performed a precautionary shutdown of the left engine and elected to return to Regina. An emergency was declared and the subsequent landing was uneventful.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14C0057: A14C0057: The ExpressJet Airlines Embraer EMB145 (N145587) Flt ASQ6005 from Chicago, IL (KORD) was descending into Winnipeg, MB (CYWG). Approximately 30 miles from Winnipeg the flight was cleared to descend to 7000 feet. The crew moved the thrust levers to idle and there was a popping sound. The noise was apparent during speed adjustments when the thrust levers were brought to idle. The crew confirmed the sound however engine indications appeared normal. The next time the thrust levers were brought back to idle; the #2 engine (Rolls Royce AE3007-A1P) ITT spiked and began an uncommanded shutdown. The crew declared an emergency and performed the QRH functions. The flight was cleared to 4,000 feet. While being vectored, the QRH was completed and the #2 engine was restarted. All engine indications were normal during the restart and the crew prepared for a 2 engine approach into YWG. After being cleared for the approach the thrust levers were brought back to idle. The #2 engine ITT indications were lost and again the engine began another uncommanded shutdown. The crew performed the QRH functions and requested additional vectors. The approach was cancelled. When the QRH checklist was complete the crew elected to leave the engine #2 shut down and perform a single-engine ILS approach. The subsequent landing was uneventful with ARFF responding as the aircraft cleared the runway. The crew received the "all clear" and taxied to the gate without further incident.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13A0098: The Virgin Atlantic Airways Airbus 330-343, registration G-VRAY, was operating as VIR25B for a planned flight from London/ Heathrow (EGLL) to New York, NY (KJFK). While in cruise, the crew noticed a discrepancy in fuel quantity between the left and right wing tanks, with less fuel in the right wing. They suspected a fuel leak and followed the Flight Crew Operating Manual procedure and shut down the #2 engine (Rolls-Royce Trent 772B-60). The crew declared an emergency and diverted to Gander, NL (CYQX). The flight landed without further incident with ARFF on standby. Maintenance identified that the fuel feed pipe to fuel pump on number 2 engine was holed/cracked under the 'P' clip. The pipe and clip were replaced and aircraft was returned to service.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14P0039: After take-off from Vancouver (CYVR), the Jazz DHC-8-402, C-GGFP, operating as JZA8201 to Prince George, BC (CYXS), had oil pressure fluctuation of its #2 engine (PWC PW150A) and an associated oil pressure warning. The crew carried out an engine shutdown, declared an emergency with ATC and diverted back to Vancouver. After landing safely, the aircraft was stopped on the runway and the passengers were deplaned.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14Q0027: The Shuttle America Embraer 170-100 registration N638RW was in the climb out of Montreal, QC (CYUL) at about 6000 feet en route to Houston, TX (KIAH) when the flight crew received a master warning EICAS message for ENG2 OIL LO PRESS. The QRH for ENG2 OIL LO PRESS was carried out and engine 2 (GE CF34) was shutdown as a precaution. The crew declared and emergency and requested a return to CYUL where a single engine and overweight landing was carried out without problem. The oil pressure transmitter was changed and the aircraft returned into service.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A14Q0032: On March 28 2014, Jazz DHC-8-402, registration C-GGMU, with 53 passengers on board, was inbound for Quebec City, QC (CYQB) from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) when its crew received an #2 engine (PWC PW150A) low oil pressure caution indication. In addition, a passenger reported what appeared to be oil coming from the #2 engine cowling. A precautionary engine shutdown was carried out and the flight diverted to Montreal, QC (CYUL). An emergency was declared and the flight landed in Montreal without further incident. Emergency services met the aircraft on landing and gave the all clear to taxi to the gate under their own power. It was later found by maintenance that the #2 propeller hub had pressurized and released through the overpressure valve. The Propeller governor was replaced as corrective action.

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13O0173: The Air Canada Embraer E190 aircraft (ACA124, C-FHNV) was en route from Calgary, AB (CYYC) to Ottawa, ON (CYOW) when the #2 engine auto-shutdown (CF34-10E5A1). The flight crew diverted to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) and declared an emergency. ARFF was standing by for the uneventful landing. Maintenance determined an internal fault with the #2 FADEC and replaced it.The #2 engine was serviceable and the aircraft was returned to service after the FADEC replacement.

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13W0108: The Air Canada Airbus A319, C-FZUJ, was operating as flight ACA150 from Vancouver, BC (CYVR) to Montreal, QC (CYUL). While in cruise at FL350 approximately 60 nm ESE of Medicine Hat, AB (CYXH), the No. 2 engine (CFM56-5A1) experienced mechanical difficulties. The flight crew shut down the engine as per the QRH, declared a PAN PAN and diverted to Calgary, AB (CYYC) for an uneventful single-engine approach and landing. Air Canada will provide an engine examination report to the TSB when available. Update 31 July 2013: Air Canada maintenance found extensive damage on the HPC stage 5,6,7,8 and 9. The engine will be changed. See iZone for pictures of damage.

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13W0107: The Canadian North Boeing 737-200, C-GDPA, was operating as flight MPE445 from Yellowknife, YT (CYZF) to Edmonton, AB (CYEG). During the climb-out from CYZF, the flight crew observed a high oil temperature indication for the No. 2 engine (Pratt and Whitney JT8D-17A). The flight crew completed a precautionary shutdown as per the QRH, declared an emergency and completed a single-engine approach and landing at Yellowknife. Maintenance found that a ducting clamp for the 13th stage bleed air system had detached allowing bleed air into the intake zone.

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13C0084: The Canadian North Boeing 737-275C, C-GOPW, Flt MPE438 had departed Rankin Inlet, NU (CYRT) for Iqaluit, NU (CYFB). The left engine Start Valve Open caution light illuminated. The crew consulted the checklist which called for an engine shutdown. The crew shut down the left engine (P&W JT8D-17) and declared an emergency. The crew elected to return to Rankin Inlet. Excess fuel was burned off in a VFR orbit to meet the landing weight of 107,000 lbs. The flight landed uneventfully on one engine with ARFF in attendance. Maintenance personnel found that a clamp that secured ducting upstream of the starter valve had broken. The clamp was replaced and a heavy weight landing inspection was carried out. Ground runs were performed and the aircraft returned to service.

UPDATE: TSB REPORT#A13A0066: The Air Canada Embraer 190 (ACA634, registration C-FHKA) departed Montreal, QC (CYUL) enroute to St John's, NL (CYYT). While in cruise flight over Charlottetown, PE (CYYG) an engine 1 oil low pressure EICAS was generated. The crew actioned the quick reference handbook and shut down the number 1 engine. The crew declared an emergency and requested diversion to Halifax, NS (CYHZ). A safe landing was made at 2232Z. Maintenance replaced an oil pressure transmitter and the aircraft was returned to service.

A WestJet Boeing 737 800 (WJA585) from Hamilton, ON (CYHM) to Calgary, AB (CYYC) declared an emergency due shutting down engine #2. ARFF advised. WJA585 diverted to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) and landed runway 05 at 1138Z without incident. No operational impact.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13P0301: An Air Canada Boeing 767-300 (ACA150, C-GDUZ), departed Vancouver, BC (CYVR) en route to Montreal, QC (CYUL). At the top of climb the number 1 engine (General Electric CF6-80C2B6F) oil quantity and pressure dropped. The engine was shut down, an emergency was declared by the aircraft returned to Vancouver.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13P0072: The flight crew of the Air New Zealand Boeing 777-219ER (ZK-OKC), enroute from Auckland, New Zealand to Vancouver, BC, were at the top of descent into Vancouver (about 60 nm west) when they received an "engine oil pressure l" EICAS message and a left engine oil pressure indication of zero. The crew shut down the engine (Rolls-Royce Trent 892) in accordance with the QRH and advised Vancouver ATC that no assistance was required. An uneventful single engine landing was conducted about 20 minutes after the engine shut down. Maintenance found that the left engine's oil pump (model LR47390D, part number 20356281, serial number C0088) was seized. The oil pump and pressure filter housing were replaced and all other associated inspection items complied with. The engine was ground run with no further faults found. The oil pump, which had accumulated 13,355 hours total time in service and 1,679 cycles, will be sent to Rolls-Royce for analysis.

TSB REPORT#A13F0112: An Air Canada Embraer 190, C-FGMF, flight ACA1743 from Los Cabos, Mexico to Vancouver, BC had the #1 engine oil pressure and quantity decreasing. The engine (CF34-10E5A1) was shut down, an emergency was declared and the flight diverted to San Francisco, CA. The aircraft landed at 22:19 PDT and taxied to the ramp. ARFF attended. It was determined an external oil line fitting ruptured. An SDR was filed with Transport Canada.

TSB Report#A13F0060: The Westjet Boeing 737-700 (C-GCWJ) / WJA 2773) was en route from Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago (TTPP) to Toronto, ON (CYYZ) at FL300 when the #1 engine oil filter bypass illuminated. The flight crew completed the non-normal checklist procedure and shut down the engine. The flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to departure airport (TTPP). The landing was uneventful with ARFF standing by. Maintenance confirmed that the filter was clogged when the line 3 bearing failed in the Angle gearbox. The gearbox and filter were subsequently replaced, and the aircraft returned to service.

A Government of Canada, Department of National Defence McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet (ODIN22) from Cold Lake, AB (CYOD) to Inuvik, NT (CYEV) was approximately 60nm SSE of Norman Wells, NT (CYVQ) when the pilot advised Edmonton ACC that he was shutting down one engine and declaring an emergency. The pilot requested ARFF standing by in Inuvik upon his arrival. The aircraft landed safely at 1721Z. No impact to operations.

UPDATE TSB A13W0034: The SkyWest Airlines Bombardier CRJ 700 (N715SK) was operating as flight SKW6269 from Calgary, AB (CYYC) to San Francisco, CA (KSFO). Immediately after departure the crew reported a bird strike and requested immediate return to land. When right engine (General Electric CF34-8C-5B1) vibration indications climbed to 9.9, the crew carried out in-flight engine shutdown as per QRH procedures. An emergency was declared and the aircraft was given priority for return to CYYC. An uneventful, single engine landing was accomplished with ARFF on standby. The aircraft taxied to the gate. Inspection of the aircraft revealed fan blade damage with missing blade tips. Engine cowl damage indicated blade tips exited through top of cowl. No fuselage damage was found.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 24): How so? The project was announced in 2003 and entered service in 2011 which is a 8 year difference.

Are you actually suggesting it was supposed to take eight years to get to EIS?   

OK....What really happened?
-did the engine blow up ala 380
-was it shut down because the crew had indications things were not right
-did the crew divert because of potential problems

Please put things in perspective....

and BTW when is airliners.net going to get spell check up and running....because it isn't

Engine shutdowns however are an EROPS issue so the appropriate regulatory agencies will be looking closely at the cause of both of these events as well as any other IFSD's.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 26): Are you actually suggesting it was supposed to take eight years to get to EIS?

Nope. Just pointing out how long it took from announcement to entry. The fact that it took that long for entry into service tells me exactly the opposite of rushing into service per his claim.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 29): The fact that it took that long for entry into service tells me exactly the opposite of rushing into service per his claim.

Being slow is not the same as not being rushed.

Those of us, who remember eleven years back in time, look back on the most "unusual" airliner development process since the Concorde. For years after 7/08/2007, first flight and EIS was constantly just around the corner, while subcontractors in both design and manufacturing were being shifted or taken over by B, and internal B project managers were exchanged in order to speed up things. Only when an important deadline was approaching did we hear about a six months further delay, never more than six months at a time.

The 787 became a textbook example of a major project hit by the "80-20-devil". We have completed 80%, the only things missing are those 20% which take 80% of the time.

R&D subcontractors are chosen for being the most optimistic, and therefore cheapest, not necessarily for their supperior capabilities. Due to low income they run short of money, and key people leave for other companies. Half finished designs are delivered as finished designs at deadlines, corrections are initiated. Manufacturing subcontractors run ahead of R&D, and are bombed back to square one by a hailstorm of spec changes, therefore they demand updated contracts and compensation for their wasted work. It happens in many industries, not just the airliner industry, especially when a company chooses to upscale outsourcing to a level which they never tried before.

When that happens, time and cost run out of control. Then there are two ways to go. 1) Identify exactly how much the 80-20-devil is at play, and confess to customers and shareholders. 2) Rush the program until company management replaces project managers and identifies a scapegoat, and tells new project managers to speed up the project. Version 2 is always chosen because version 1 is immediate suicide.

Counless projects have died for the same reason. We can at least be happy that it didn't happen to B787.

So the UA 777 that IIRC flew for 3:12 over the pacific on one engine has been beaten by this 787 incident if it indeed flew for 4hrs on one engine... So, will this flight hold the record for the longest flight on one engine after losing an engine???

Quoting by738 (Reply 3):

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 20): R&D subcontractors are chosen for being the most optimistic, and therefore cheapest, not necessarily for their supperior capabilities.

The expert is the one who says it will take the longest and cost the most.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 21): So the UA 777 that IIRC flew for 3:12 over the pacific on one engine has been beaten by this 787 incident if it indeed flew for 4hrs on one engine... So, will this flight hold the record for the longest flight on one engine after losing an engine???

Wasn't there an Asiana 763ER that flew on one engine to Saipan for ~4 or 5 hr recently?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....cy-landing-azores-military-7575081

Versus

http://avherald.com/h?article=47862e6f&opt=0

Low oil indication. Precautionary shutdown. Gearbox was leaking.

Looks like a possible fitting problem.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4788591c&opt=0

[Edited 2014-08-09 20:51:49]

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15): A United States Air Force Boeing B-52 (DOOM13) from Royal Air Force Fairford (EGVA) to Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, SD (KRCA) declared an emergency. Engine was shut down due to low pressure. The aircraft continued to destination. Left Canadian airspace at 1210Z. No impact on operations.

Did this crew face the dreaded 7 engine landing?

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 24):

Wait, wait... so it was 90 minutes not 4 hours?

That's not even in the ball park.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 19): Nope. Just pointing out how long it took from announcement to entry. The fact that it took that long for entry into service tells me exactly the opposite of rushing into service per his claim

The fact that it took that long for entry into service *could* also tell you that was because it was rushed in the first place . . .

Remember the 7/8/7 Potemkin roll out? How was that not rushed?

It took program management two-three years and many 6-month delay announcements before the thing finally got delivered. While there are off course many factors in play, the notion that the initial development (until/including roll out) was(somewhat) rushed, should not be dismissed that easily. Many aviation insiders held that observation already at program launch.

And just to clarify, despite all the problems, I'm still a 787 fan, and will not hesitate to step on it any time I get the change.
Is it a dangerous plane? Despite the well-documented problems, NO. Is the 727 considered a dangerous plane? Don't know, but will step on board one if I get the chance! And just for reflection, how many 727 had (major, and lethal) crashes by the time frame nr 250 got delivered?

Rgds,
PW100

There are problems with both GE and RR engines for the 787. I know the workshops at RR have had quite a few 1000's returned. The problem though should now be resolved.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 28): There are problems with both GE and RR engines for the 787. I know the workshops at RR have had quite a few 1000's returned. The problem though should now be resolved.

I thought GEnx icing issue still not resolved. GE/Boeing still suggesting 787/GEnx operators to avoid thunderstorms.

I think goosebayguy was talking about the RR engines.

I'm confused. An hour and a half into a trip from Dominican Republic would put the plane somewhere near Miami. Why would the plane proceed all the way across the Atlantic (which would be way more than the reported "four hours" by the way) on one engine before making an emergency landing?

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter): Pretty scary, but great that twin engines can fly with one of them working.

I don't know why the New York Post is in this business, they can't get normal news so they have to sensationalize a minor incident without context and then obviously they don't have a clue what they are talking about since they have the wrong plane on the front page of their "newpaper". I would not call this a reputable paper to begin with.

Quoting sptv (Reply 31): I'm confused. An hour and a half into a trip from Dominican Republic would put the plane somewhere near Miami. Why would the plane proceed all the way across the Atlantic (which would be way more than the reported "four hours" by the way) on one engine before making an emergency landing?

According to the AvHerald entry, they were only 90 minutes from the Azores when this happened. Someone, somewhere is reporting wrong timelines and all the news outlets are running with it, it seems.

Quoting sptv (Reply 31): I'm confused. An hour and a half into a trip from Dominican Republic would put the plane somewhere near Miami. Why would the plane proceed all the way across the Atlantic (which would be way more than the reported "four hours" by the way) on one engine before making an emergency landing?

I don't think the flight went anywhere near Miami. My guess is they were over four hours into the flight when the engine issue came up, which would be consistent with their position being "about 550 nm west of Terceira Island (Portugal)", as reported by the AvHerald (and approximately halfway between POP & MAN). This is probably where the four hour figure came from but the media messed it up. 90 minutes is what it took them to get to Terceira/Lajes after the engine shutdown. Had this happened 90 minutes into the flight, they would have most likely gone to Bermuda.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 27): Remember the 7/8/7 Potemkin roll out? How was that not rushed?

That was a huge sales event. It's really no different than any airshow. They're sales events. Yes I remember it but they were there to get orders. Heck, they even got Tom Brokaw to run the event. Between July 2007 and December 2007, 112 787's were firmed. I watched that entire event on the internet when it was being broadcasted. Naturally it wasn't certified yet and Boeing admitted that they were going to be installing test equipment soon on it. They also needed to kill the overweight issue which they were working to get rid of. It's really no different from the 747 Pan Am order when no 747 was built yet and they only had a "Potemkin" 747 mock-up at the time to pitch to Pan Am.

It was hardly rushed into service considering the North Charleston sites and other supplier sites were opened in 2006. The sites were announced in 2004 but they didn't even get Mid or Aft bodies running until June 2006 for example. The first fuselage part rolled off the line in North Charleston on May 8th, 2007.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 35): That was a huge sales event

Sure it was, but still rushed . . .

Quoting PW100 (Reply 36): Sure it was, but still rushed . . .

Okay, why? Who is currently flying ZA001?

I think you missed this part from the poster

Quote: Boeing rushed this project and it's going to bite them back hard in the coming years.

The project has been streaming a long just fine. This is just an engine issue which has nothing to do with the 787 but rather with the engine manufacturer.

[Edited 2014-08-11 08:21:47]

Before we call doom on the whole 787 Program, anyone remember the 77W had a ton of IFESDs a few years after it started flying? GE fixed it and they'll do the same with these 787 engines so chill out folks.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 37): I think you missed this part from the poster

Please reread my first reply on this thread, and specifically what I was replying to. Thanks.