View Full Version : ROYAL BRUNEI-2 ETOPS Flights Have an Engine Fail

UAE Camel
28th Apr 2004, 08:13
Just got to hear that Royal Brunei has had ANOTHER engine fail on an ETOPS flight. From what I hear it was a 757 on a ferry flight from AKL to BWN. Oil Qty going down as they passed Darwin, but pressed on and had to shut down the engine and ended up in Ujung Pandang.
Any more info on this, looked up the old Borneo B newspaper but as you can guess the heads are in the sand-well trees then.
This follows an emergancy return landing (due flap problems) and evacuation in BKK. The evacuation was due to a Tower report that the wheels were on fire. Just days before that an ETOPS 767 flight PER-BWN had an engine fail at TOC and they returned to PER.
From what I am told the PER and BKK flights both had Training Capt's in command and they were both "text book"
However, questions should be asked. When I was there some years back a CFD was an "event"

28th Apr 2004, 13:03
Any info on the engine types involved?

UAE Camel
28th Apr 2004, 16:06
The 767 has P & W but 2 of the 767 fleet are GE's. The 757 has RR.

28th Apr 2004, 16:07
How on earth can these be classified as ETOPS conditions. I don't believe that they fall under ETOPS

28th Apr 2004, 23:06
If it had have not been a ferry flight then it would have been ETOPs. Being a ferry means it did not have to be an ETOPs flight.

29th Apr 2004, 04:16
I also don't think that a return landing caused by a flap problem is an event under ETOPs rules.

29th Apr 2004, 22:39

If it had have not been a ferry flight then it would have been ETOPs. Being a ferry means it did not have to be an ETOPs flight.

are you a Yogi Berra fan?:D

fire wall
30th Apr 2004, 13:47
I suggest that a quick review of ETOPS criteria is in order PANOPS.
Camel, I am unsure as to your motivation on this topic. You have left so why does this have any bearing on your existance....... sour grapes that you were overlooked for a LHS perhaps? Enjoy the sand storms, I was unaware tea party's were your forte however I wait with bated breath to see which of your user names you chose in response.

30th Apr 2004, 23:26
Any more info on that ujung pandang diversion by V8-RBB? It was working fine at ROYAL TONGAN before they took it back last sunday. Why was it shut down (engine) and where is it now?cheers.

UAE Camel
1st May 2004, 12:06
fire wall. All Royal Brunei flights from Australia used to be ETOPS. The point I was making was that their aircraft never used to carry a defect, and now they have had 2 engine shut downs and an evacuation. This on a fleet of about 10 aircraft over a period of a few weeks. Whats going on? Are any alarm bells ringing or is it all being swept under the carpet.

fire wall
2nd May 2004, 00:33
Camel, all RBA flight are still ETOPS. That is unless continental drift has moved some poor unsuspecting airport inside the arc.
No carpet to sweep anything under......too poor!
However by the same token in your new abode there has been low level stab trim runaway on the 310 in home port, cargo fire indication on tripler over Madras, grass mowing contracts in Jo'burg, low level fish spotting in the gulf again in a tripler...(but to name just a few) ...............my god the sky must be falling on your collective heads......

"Whats going on? Are any alarm bells ringing or is it all being swept under the carpet."

yep, sour grapes!

2nd May 2004, 01:13
Wasnt the 757 that was leased to Royal Tongan grounded due to engine problems? I recall hearing that on the news on night here in New Zealand.

3rd May 2004, 15:22
No, sources in the seats, state the aircraft was reposessed due to non payment of lease/hire finance agreement. It was nearly taken back a few weeks prior to this, but the Tonga wonga flowed and the aircraft was allowed to remain. The engine problem was enroute back to BWN, diverted due to low engine oil and pressures into Ujung. I am informed that due to the repossession of the aircraft, the resident RBA spanners were on board as well during the diversion, so minimal ground time was incurred.

3rd May 2004, 23:58
Just to make clear:

The detailed requirements of this CAP will be applicable to all twin-engined aeroplanes (including those powered by turbo-props and reciprocating engines) which are flying for the purpose of public transport, and which meet both of the following criteria:
(a) the maximum authorised take-off weight exceeds 5700 kg; and
(b) the aeroplane is certificated to carry more than 19 passengers.

I'm pretty sure on seeing what most of the Royal Brunei ops are based on they operate to the above. The key words are "for the purpose of public transport" which when you check the legal definition which is found here;
excludes ferry flights. That was just basically my point, that's all Boo Boo.

Hay Ewe
4th May 2004, 06:34
An ETOPS flight doesnt nessecarily have to be over water.

Just a region where no suitable landng area exists.

Hay Ewe

fire wall
5th May 2004, 09:48
Panops, on the face of what you have provided I beleive you are owed an apology. I stand corrected. Thank You.

8th May 2004, 08:03
Whether ferry flights are ETOPS or not is an interesting sideline, but surely the main topic should be how far have RBA’s standards fallen in recent years, if at all?

As a recent example, allegedly, the BWN-BNE-AKL-BNE-BWN service took off in a 767 with a u/s IDG, thereby using the APU continuously as essential equipment. The APU also had a known oil leak. On arrival at BNE the QF engineers topped up the virtually empty APU oil tank, but quite rightly refused to sign off the ETOPS check for the next sector to AKL. The a/c then limped round the rest of the route, at night, definately ETOPS, on an ATP [Authority To Proceed] from the Brunei DCA!

Right down to 3rd world standards for a once good airline, methinks.

30th Jun 2004, 04:50
With the 757, a fellow told me the accesory drive oil seal burst and all the oil got pumped over the side, but at the time Ujung was the closest place.....................