AA Engine Failure

[matblack]

Although by no means an incident of any note I heard today that an AA plane had to idle one engine because they "couldn't get any power out of it" and were "experiencing vibrations". I think it was heading for Manchester at the time. This "incident" isn't the point of my post but triggered the following.
I am a frequent flyer and seem to have formed an opinion (misguided maybe?) that the B777 seems to have more engine failures than one would normally expect.
Could anyone offer a view on this?
I've no idea if the aircraft today was a 777 but it just triggered my thought process.
At present I choose 4 engines when crossing water because I just feel safer I suppose.

[lexxity]

This would explain the cancelled MANMIA today then. I just know it was tech not the details.

[chiglet]

767, landed ok [as have countless others, at MAN,LHR,DXB,JFK]
:zzz: :bored:
watp,iktch

[TimS]

Manchester - Miami (AA) operated by 767 rather than 777 ...

skmanmia,aa
1 AA 157 /JDW MANMIA 1135 1615 767 0 M 29JAN26MAR
SYBHQMNKLVG

... so that's another one to avoid then.

[viking737]

Latest is Left engine compressor stall

[eal401]

The MAN flights by AA usually are 767s. And they do seem to have a few issues with engine reliability.

[Rainboe]

...and where does that come from pray? All the 767 engines are very reliable! Bit unfair to castigate the 777. It is a reliable aeroplane with ETOPS certification. That is not a mere formality.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

matblack said:
I am a frequent flyer and seem to have formed an opinion (misguided maybe?) that the B777 seems to have more engine failures than one would normally expect.
As far as I am aware, the B777 suffers from no more engine failures than any other ETOPS-approved aeroplane. However, given that the B777 was the first aircraft to be built with immediate ETOPS-approval from entry into service (instead of on the basis of proven reliability), any failures it does suffer are then the subject of greater scrutiny. This greater scrutiny creates the impression of more events.
I hope this is reassuring- I too prefer 4-engines for long trips, but that is largely because they look nice! :O

[dallas dude]

"...they do seem to have a few issues with engine reliability."

eal401,

Care to provide some factual details to support your claim or is this hearsay?

DD

[Avman]

To be honest, I prefer 4 engines over oceans too. Usually, when flying on B767 or B777 this is achieved by about the fifth glass of Champagne :D ;)

[RRAAMJET]

Matblack,

Having spent many, many hours trundling around the world in the 747, 757, 767 and 777, I can assure you they are all exceptionally fine machines. I have no particular preference for any of them - if anything, the 777 - but you can feel safe in any of them.

I think I'd prefer to fly the 767-300ER with a 50% power loss over the 747, however....(I know I know, I'm being an ass with odds and statistics!).

Until I find out what caused the compressor stall, I'll reserve judgement on the engine failure rate. Could be birds, FOD damage, whatever....CF-6 is a good donk. RR Trent is an even better one.

Cheers.

[HOVIS]

My sources tell me it was the 6th and 7th stage compressor that went bang! Several rotor blades a lot smaller now than they were designed to be. No obvious cause, probably will have to wait for a full workshop strip down for that. The crew throttled the engine back to idle after hearing (feeling?) two loud bangs and high vibration whilst climbing thru FL290.
Overweight landing and a very nice professional job allround.

Well done to f/crew and ATC for a well handled PAN.

Oh yes and well done to the engineers who worked in the freezing cold to assess the problem quickley.:ok:

[Port Strobe]

Whether or not the 777 is more prone to engine failure or not I can't comment on, but I do believe it holds the world record for OEI during an ETOPS operation, think it went something like four or six hours during a trial flight. So even if you are more likely to be reduced to one engine, you can at least be safe in the knowledge its the best in the game in that department! :D

[matblack]

The reason I ask the question about the 777 I suppose is based on "vague recollection" of snippets on the news about airlines making unscheduled landings due to engine failure which seemed to involve the 777. I accept that I may be mistaken but I wanted to ask the question. I think you've answered it.

As far as safety is concerned I have utmost confidence in pilots and never feel any unease during flights. As a businessman involved in the manufacturing sector (not aircraft related) , however, I am only too aware of the emphasis placed on lean, low cost businesses and have witnessed a number of successful businesses brought to their knees by poor management with scant regard for their emplyees. Cost cuts, corner cuts & staff cuts frequently reap short term benefits for long term pain. This is my major concern when flying. This practice is rife in almost every sector of business. When it happens to aircraft operations, maintenance & ATC I want to learn about it. If it hasn't happened to the air industry then you are one of the lucky ones.

[Re-Heat]

As the majority of Atlantic flights are ETOPS on 767, 777 or 330, one is bound to hear more about a diversion due to engine malfunction that on a 747, with not only fewer flights but often the fuel endurance and non-constraint of ETOPS to continue to destination on 3 engines.

matblack - consider on a Singapore to London flight that a 'normal' engine malfunction/failure at Singapore on a 744 will result - in the absence of any other failure or limitation - in the continuation of the flight to Europe (say Frankfurt due to lesser fuel efficiency on 3).

A 777 however would return to Singapore, resulting in a news story (possibly) and greater passenger reorganisation.

[rotornut]

Well done to f/crew and ATC for a well handled PAN
Only a PAN - Now that's professionalism!

[Ignition Override]

MatBlack: you might want to read about OUTSOURCING of US airline maintenance, which is done by many airlines. Does this happen in Britain/Ireland and Europe?

Yesterday's 'Wall Street Journal' (Jan 30) featured a long and interesting article about this. Form what I remember, here are some reproted tidbits. Some contract maintenance requires only that supervisors must have the FAA-approved license. The other workers are not required to have it, whether in the US or not. Much of the aircraft heavy maintenance is done overseas. About 20 years ago, a Convair 580 which belonged to a Navy Reserve VR squadron (NAF Washington/Andrews AFB) crashed with no surviviors while trying to return to the facility in Dothan, AL, US. An inspection of the elevator control cable was apparently missed. Recently, a contract with a major US airline (from my personal knowledge-I flew there...) at Dothan was almost cancelled until the airline transferred an experienced crew chief from the 'upper midwest' to work at the facility. I guess that cost big bucks....Ja, you betcha.

US low-cost JetBlue seems to send about a fourth of its planes each year to El Salvador for heavy maintenance. Some of their workers can pass an exam in English, many do not. The voluntary class is in Miami.

World airline leader Southwest allowed an executive to comment on the fact that they don't want their aircraft to be serviced by companies with high labor turnover. This was the only comment in the entire article about high turnover, whether it often actually is the case or not, which I noticed.

In the 90's Valuejet (now Airtran) had some engine maintenance done in a very southeastern European nation. While taking off in Atlanta after engine inspections, some pieces broke off of an engine and shrapnel sliced through the leg of a flight attendant on a DC-9, near the knee (hand grenade, anyone?). Painful? :ouch: A USAirways B-1900 crashed not too long ago at Charlotte NC due to problems following outside technical work.

In this article a former NTSB inspector (Loeb) who had maintenance experience seemed to express concern over the fact that so many airline mechanics/'engineers' are being laid off etc. Airlines are gradually losing their in-house highly technical' skills. Does an airline technician have more personal incentive than an 'outsourced' technician to do the job right, and not rush, when HIS family will fly on these same aircraft? :ouch: If this is the case, are airline exectives aware of this, or are they totally indifferent, because it can not be quantified in a "Cost Accounting 301" classroom?

[Tallbloke]

Ignition Override

There has long been an effort in aircraft maintenance to use Simplified English in direct recognition of the fact that not all aircraft maintenance takes place in English speaking countries. Since English is NOT the mother tongue of most of the world, there are now considerable resources being devoted to other methods of communicating maintenance procedures, for instance.

Outsourcing is a fact of life in European aviation. Airlines use it for a variety of reasons, but mainly to save money. This can be acheived in a number of ways, not just by paying low wages although this is a factor.

The reason ValuJet became AirTran was following a maintenance related accident in which a DC-9 crashed into the Florida Everglades. The NTSB found that the primary cause of the accident was a cargo fire which started in oxygen generators which had been incorrectly labelled by a third party maintainance organisation. Contributing factors were the complete lack of oversight by the airline and the regulator. In fact, concerns about ValuJet had already been raised within the FAA, but the inspector concerned was "moved" for making too much noise. His concern was that the airline was expanding operations too quickly without having the neccesary infrastructure in place to maintain adequate oversight.

Spending less on maintenance by doing it more efficiently (NOT by cutting corners) is one of the tools used by airlines in order to reduce fares, and hence open up air transport to more and more passengers, hence fuelling the expansion of the industry. There is no reason why outsourcing should not continue to provide good quality maintenance to the aviation industry, but it relies on good oversight and must be properly integrated with the customer's needs.

I wonder what readers opinions are regarding the decision by a court about a year ago forbidding US Airways from outsourcing heavy maintenance of it's A319s, after a challenge by the International Association of Machinists in a court is Pittsburgh. Ridiculous I say. An airline cannot decide where it can get it's aircraft fixed? Especially one in the financially precarious position that US Airways is in.

Well done to the crew.

[LME (GOD)]

Ignition, are you implying that American outsource their maintenance? They don't. In fact they are one of the few North American companies expanding their in house capabilites for overhaul. As for the 767, it was a HPC 6 failure. Engine currently on route from the states with LHR mechs going to change it.
As for the article you refer to, outsourcing has been a fact of life since the year dot. What that report implied was mechanics/engineer/technician licensed or approved in different countries did not have the same oversight as the registering nation. This maybe be true in some case but the airline would have to ensure standards in the hangar as well as the NAA. Another fine piece of scaremongering journalism for the pullover wearers (it was a broadsheet):) :ok: