View Full Version : Singapore 777 Airliner forced down in Melbourne

25th Aug 2004, 00:14
This was released by www.news.com.au, has anybody got any additional information?

SINGAPORE Airlines has blamed a engine surge for an emergency landing of one of its flights at Melbourne Airport early today.

A Boeing 777-300 passenger jet with 278 passengers and 21 crew dumped some of its fuel load in Port Phillip Bay and returned to Melbourne for an emergency landing about 1.45am (AEST) after passengers saw sparks fly from the left engine.

The aircraft, which had taken off for Singapore shortly before 1am today, landed safely with no injuries reported.

Eleven fire appliances rushed to the airport after the pilot reported engine problems soon after the plane took off.

Singapore Airlines spokesman Samantha Stewart said although the plane could have flown on one engine, airline procedures required the pilot to land at the first opportunity.

"On take-off the aircraft experienced a surge in the left-hand engine," Ms Stewart said.

"The pilot ensured safe clearance of the aircraft and undertook a fuel dump to bring the aircraft's weight down prior to landing.

"At this time it appears that the surge caused the left-hand engine to overheat, resulting in sparks in the engine which were visible to passengers on board."

The aircraft, powered by twin Rolls Royce Trent engines, would not return to service until the engine was replaced or repaired, Ms Stewart said.

Accommodation has been provided for passengers needing it.

"We are doing everything possible to ensure that they are as comfortable as they can be during this delay," she said.



25th Aug 2004, 09:29
There goes the ETOPS again..

Everytime the RR chokes, everyone shakes.
Precious ETOPS is shaking everyone.

Just image "tempo" Etops not-avail.

Just another day in 777 in SQ.

25th Aug 2004, 09:43
Does not affect etops at all.
You have got to be in the etops area for the failure to be considered as an etops statistic.

25th Aug 2004, 10:07

All engine operating data is used for ETOPS approvals, all shut downs, even those that were done during testing and certification.


phoenix son
25th Aug 2004, 10:16

The whole point about ETOPS is that it hinges on the RELIABILITY of the aircraft, it's engines and other ETOPS-critical systems. Statistics are produced to demonstrate this level of reliability, which include ALL in-flight shutdowns, regardless of which phase of flight they occur in, in order to achieve (and maintain) certification of that aircraft type for ETOPS operations by any given airline.


Old King Coal
25th Aug 2004, 10:46
faheel - I'm not sure what you suggest is correct, e.g. under JAR ( which is pretty much in-line with ICAO and the FAR's - ergo the ETOPs approval process is reasonably standard across all regulating authorities ) it is stated in 'ACJ 20X6 - Temporary Guidance Material for Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and Operation' ( which now replaces CAP513 ) : In establishing the suitability of a type design in accordance with paragraph 8 ( of ACJ 20X6 ) and as a pre-requisite to obtaining any operational approval in accordance with the criteria of paragraph 10 ( of ACJ 20X6 ), it should be shown that an acceptable level of propulsion system and airframe systems reliability can be or has been achieved in service by the world fleet for the particular airframe-engine combination.

For this purpose, prior to the type design approval, paragraph 8, it should be shown that the world fleet of the particular airframe-engine combination for which approval is sought can achieve or has achieved, as determined by the Authority ( see Appendix 1 of AJC 20X6 ), an acceptable and reasonably stable level of single propulsion system in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate and airframe system reliability. Engineering and operational judgement applied in accordance with the guidance outlined in Appendix 1 will then be used to determine that the IFSD rate objective for all independent causes can be or has been achieved. This assessment is an integral part of the determination in paragraph 8.b.(2) for type design approval. This determination of propulsion system reliability is derived from a world fleet data base containing, in accordance with requirements of Appendix 1, all in-flight shutdown events, all significant engine reliability problems, design and test data and available data on cases of significant loss of thrust, including those where the propulsion system failed or the engine was throttled back or shut down by the pilot. This determination will take due account of the approved maximum diversion time, proposed rectification of all identified propulsion and ETOPS significant systems problems, as well as events where in-flight starting capability may be degraded.I'll leave it to you to read-up on what the ACJ has to say in full ( e.g. various other sections and / or the Appendix, plus 'ACJ 20X8 - Occurrence Reporting' )

phoenix son - I believe the stats to which you refer are as follows ( and as also defined in ACJ 20X6 document ):c. Risk Management and Risk Model

Propulsion systems approved for extended range operation must be sufficiently reliable to assure that defined safety targets are achieved.
A review of information for modern fixed wing jet powered aircraft shows that the rate of fatal accidents for all causes is in the order of 0∑3 x 10-6 per flying hour. The reliability of aeroplane types approved for extended range operation should be such that they achieve at least as good an accident record as equivalent technology equipment. The overall target of 0∑3 x 10-6 per flying hour has therefore been chosen as the all-causes safety target.

When considering safety targets, an accepted practice is to allocate appropriate portions of the total to the various potential contributing factors. By applying this practice to the overall target of 0∑3 x 10 -6 per flying hour, in the proportions previously considered appropriate, the probability of a catastrophic accident due to complete loss of thrust from independent causes must be no worse than 0∑3 x 10-8 per
flying hour.

Propulsion system related accidents may result from independent cause events but, based on historical evidence, result primarily from events such as uncontained engine failure events, common cause events, engine failure plus crew error events, human error related events and other. The majority of these factors are not specifically exclusive to ETOPS.

25th Aug 2004, 13:50
What I meant was that it does not count as a etops diversion statistic because it did not occur in the etops area.

I do agree that it does indeed count as an ifsd statistic.

Too much red vino as I punched the keys

27th Aug 2004, 09:51
Bit off the beaten track, but there's a pretty good article in Airways magazine about Mr. Taylor and the advent of ETOPS.

It's interesting........ummmm.....honest! :rolleyes:

27th Aug 2004, 10:15
Maybe it's me, but it seems the 777 has quite a number of engine problems, compared with other a/c's?

gas path
27th Aug 2004, 10:37
I doubt it, but being twins they are more high profile. At least with a quad you can very often carry on to destination if there are no other problems.

27th Aug 2004, 14:00
I doubt it, but being twins they are more high profile. At least with a quad you can very often carry on to destination if there are no other problems.

How/why is this any different with a twin?

Isn't this a pilot discretion issue?

Buster Hyman
27th Aug 2004, 14:54
What is it with 777 donks & YMML???:confused:
dumped some of its fuel load in Port Phillip Bay
2 things with the above. That's a pretty good effort to be dumping fuel in Port Philip Bay and, I'm never eating fish out of there again! The mercury was bad enough!

1st Sep 2004, 08:24
Capt. KAOS - you may have something with your comments.

On Monday a nice new 777-300ER with AF appeared to have problems taking off from CDG. One of the two GE90-115B engines flamed out and the flight was cancelled.

As for ETOPS - don't Boeing and Airbus issue stats on the current IFSD position for each airframe and engine? Rather than looking at individual incidents should we put them into perspective by considering the fleet position?


Cap 56
1st Sep 2004, 14:11
The RR has underperformed in terms of reliability and this from the very beginning.

I am not surprised that BA has the GE under their B 777 wings.

Maybe itís time that BMW does to RR Aero engines what they have done to the RR cars and things will go better.

In my opinion there is far too much risk taking and impulsiveness in the British system.

1st Sep 2004, 17:22
Sorry to surprise you Cap56 but actually the latest crop of BA 777s have Trents, not GE90s!

1st Sep 2004, 21:16
CAP 56

I sensed a little prejudice in your post.

Perhaps some data to back up your claims would change my opinion.

I thought that BMW has nothing to do with the Trent family of engines.

2nd Sep 2004, 00:37
No, lomapaseo, it ain't a 'pilots discretion issue'.

In a twin, if one engine quits/is shut down, diversion is manditory.
Pretty basic stuff.

Are you sure you a jet transport pilot?:confused: :}

Old Smokey
2nd Sep 2004, 13:23
I'm approaching my 'Use By' date in a long airline career. In that career I've flown 2, 3, and 4 engined jet transports. By my figuring the B777 would be no more than 200 miles from the departure airport (Melbourne), and the logical decision following engine failure in a 2, 3, or 4 engined aircraft would be to return to the departure airport.

411A says "In a twin, if one engine quits/is shut down, diversion is manditory. Pretty basic stuff." - Spot on 411A. This pilot says that even in a 3 or 4 engined aircraft, Good Airmanship and Safety considerations following a possible second engine failure would indicate a 200 mile return to the departure airport in lieu of 8 or so hours to the destination as the sensible option.

Where, in the name of goodness, did an ETOPS discussion arise from this incident?