CX 777's

[Mr. Bloggs]

Why are the CX 777’s on the ground with no engines? Are the Rolls having the same problem as the GE’s? One can still take-off with the GE’s. Go Airbus!
Is it affecting their ETOPS?

[Night Watch]

I must say... it's has not been a good look for some time now! Taxing down to 07R and seeing a CX 777 with no engines.... you'd think that they could move it somewhere else, out of the view of the pax.

[The Messiah]

It certainly is affecting their ETOPS. Last time I checked you require 2 engines for ETOPS.

[LapSap]

.... you'd think that they could move it somewhere else, out of the view of the pax.

You mean like next to the other 777 with the hot end missing in the "T" bay, so they can see it when they come off 07L/25R :}

[NdekePilot]

Mr. Bloggs,
You can't POSSIBLY be comparing the Boeing 777 to an Airbus....surely????!!!!
NP.:= := := :E :E :E

[The Messiah]

CX 777's are 180 min ETOPS providing they have both engines bolted on.

[BlueEng]

Something to do with the turbine blades deciding to leave the engine. I believe SQ are also suffering from this latest RR failure...CX's fascination with the RR engines must surely end soon.

[MrBernoulli]

BA's RR Trent 895 777s don't seem to be having any trouble! Are CX's a different version?

[BusyB]

I understand RR said wait until they are due a check before changing the blades but as CX had had 2 failures they did theirs straight away and got all the spares they could. SQ have got some a/c AOG as have Emirates. I think American and BA have yet to start checking theirs.:D

[swh]

CX's fascination with the RR engines must surely end soon.
EY just lost their ETOPS approval after 2 GE90-115 HPT failures, something for SQ and CX to look forward to.

[The Messiah]

Why would they lose their ETOPS when the very definiition of ETOPS is to allow for engine failures etc.

Doesn't sound right to me.

[spannersatcx]

Because the T in ETOPS is for Twin not single.

[Striker58]

The Messiah.

Are you for real! Go to the Wannabe's forum, it's obviously where you belong.

[The Messiah]

swh
When you say EY do you mean Emirates which are EK or Etihad which are EY?

Striker58
Are you a second officer by any chance?

[Beta Light]

I understand RR said wait until they are due a check before changing the blades but as CX had had 2 failures they did theirs straight away and got all the spares they could. SQ have got some a/c AOG as have Emirates. I think American and BA have yet to start checking theirs.:D

CX had 1 and SQ 2 failures of LP blades according to tech. sources. Rest of info is same as I have it.

[SMOC]

The EK failure recently is being discussed here, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248980 it was a failure of some sort on an A330 T700, CX had a fan fail on a A330 T700 back in Sept.

Here are a couple of pics from the EK thread, some BIG holes :eek:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4796/image000va2.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3654/image002fn7.jpg

[SkyCruiser]

swh
Striker58
Are you a second officer by any chance?
Strange, may I ask what if he is?....I hope your not having a dig at the SOs now!!!!:=

[The Messiah]

Just curious if he is and how much ETOPS experience he would have as being one.

As far as I can find out EK have not lost their ETOPS approval at all. I would be very surprised if they had, just for 2 engine failures which were quite possibly not even ETOPS flights (but of course possibly they were I don't know). If it is a GE90-115 problem then all operators of them would lose ETOPS until the problem is fixed don't you think? Just to harp on it a bit more whatever ETOPS rule you are approved to (eg 180 min) lets not forget that is based on flying to the nearest suitable after the failure at single engine Vmo/Mmo not twin engine. I think a few of you may be a bit confused by the term because it is effectively Extended Single Engine OPS when you have to rely on it for real.

I know it is a rumour network but you still have to be hesitant to believe anything you read on here.

[spannersatcx]

I think a few of you may be a bit confused by the term because it is effectively Extended Single Engine OPS when you have to rely on it for real.

Not really, ETOPS is NOT just about the ability to fly on one engine, you can have 2 perfectly serviceable engines and not be able to fly an ETOPS sector, there are a multitude of other factors/systems that allow you to fly ETOPS, as the OP is for operations. I think it is you who is confused.:)

[The Messiah]

Not confused here at all, the original point was regarding engine failures which is what I was questioning, not whether there is an E in the MEL prior to dispatch.

[Mr. Bloggs]

NdekePilot

There is no comparison between the 777 and the Airbus. The Airbus is superiorly designed and built. Surely. :E :E :ok:

[spannersatcx]

just for 2 engine failures which were quite possibly not even ETOPS flights It is irrelivant whether the flts were ETOPS sectors or not, if a component fails which will/can affect your ability to operate under ETOPS even on a non ETOPS flt will affect your status/ability to maintain ETOPS compliance.

The Airbus is superiorly designed and built Now that is funny.:ok:

[swh]

As far as I can find out EK have not lost their ETOPS approval at all.
EY lost the approval. The 77W ETOPS approval has been revoked until the remaining 77W aircraft in their fleet have been boroscoped. Two engines have been replaced so far on different aircraft. Only the 77W at EY lost the approval, the Airbus fleet is still flying ETOPS.
I have sent you two PMs over this. How did you came up with the idea of EK ? :ugh:

[The Messiah]

I did ask whether it was EY or EK way back and only got references to EK failures from others and nothing from you. I read your first PM which you confirmed it was EY, fair enough. You didn't expect me to reply to you did you? If it was the PW triplers at EY then I would think it is a systemic problem within EY more than the aircraft.

This is getting boring, I was only saying that a couple of engine failures are not necessarily grounds to lose ETOPS otherwise SQ, UA and others would have lost theirs long ago.

....and Spanners.....I realise that you are an engineer and you need to have the last say, it is not unusual, so whatever you want to say now go ahead I won't be reading it anyway so won't reply.:bored:

[spannersatcx]

....and Spanners.....I realise that you are an engineer and you need to have the last say, it is not unusual, so whatever you want to say now go ahead I won't be reading it anyway so won't reply.

OK, still at least we've learned something about ETOPS:ok:

[Numero Crunchero]

FYI...I have flown with lots of guys/gals that have flown all 3 types we have and it is unanimous that 77 is the best aircraft...i think it is also unanimous that they have the worst roster so far!

Interesting point...when we grounded the A330s for the step aside gearbox in 97 or 98? we had wet leased Garuda aircraft doing our Perth flights....interestingly, Garuda were using the same airframe and same engine that we just grounded....hmmm...why am I so cynical about ETOPS???

[Mr. Bloggs]

Don’t think CX grounded the aircraft. Me Thinks the CAD told CX to ground the aircraft. Then the “Little Pigmy” took credit. He is not that smart.

Must be a very lonesome place with one shut down and the other at Max Chat.

I am sure the 777 is a the best, but it is missing an engine on each wing.

Does Rolls make their parts in China or do the airlines get their parts from there.

[BusyB]

I think the CAD are even less smart so where does that leave it Mr Bloggs:confused:

[calvinyeung]

Malaysian Airlines 777 Engine Failure..metals falling out clearly seen on the picture.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1134244

[spannersatcx]

It is a D duct failure similar to the ones we had.