AF 777

[catchup]

landed at Irkutsk. What happened?

regards

[Longtimer]

MOSCOW, Dec. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- An Air France airliner made an emergency landing in Russia's Siberian region Saturday after it suffered an engine stall, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The Air France Boeing 777 jet, with 220 passengers aboard, madea request for emergency landing in the Siberian city of Irkutsk after one of the jet's two engines stopped during a flight from Seoul to Paris, Irkutsk airport director general Alexei Kulikov told Itar-Tass.

Kulikov said the landing was smooth.

All passengers and the crew have been accommodated at the airport and are expected to spend the night at local hotels. Enditem

[WHBM]

All passengers and the crew have been accommodated at the airport and are expected to spend the night at local hotels
Hmmm, 220 pax, no Russian visas, suddenly wanting accommodation in Irkutsk of all places. That should be a barrel of laughs.

[beaucaire]

Passengers will be flown with IL 96 to Moscow and then transfered to CDG - engine of the 777 needs complete change...
I think the days of the A 340-600 and A340-500 are not completely over yet...
Flying over the pacific on a twin is defenitely not the safest of all solutions - the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes )

[concordino]

Hello beaucaire

the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes )

Would you care to elaborate more on your statement.

Thanks

[donpizmeov]

A United Airlines B777 did a 192min single engine diversion a few years ago. I think it was out of AKL going LAX. Memory fades though.
Don

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Yes a United B777 did go 12 minutes over, but that is on the extended ETOPS limit.
I think that is 207 minutes, if my memory serves me?

[beaucaire]

.......about an United Airlines Boeing 777 that flew for 192 minutes on a one engine diversion after it had a technical problem on a route from Auckland to Los Angeles. It made an emergency diversion and landed safely at the Kona airport in Hawaii on 17th March 2003. It exceeded the regulated 3 hours by 12 minutes due to strong headwind and that was not a problem on the engine.

[M.Mouse]

I think the days of the A 340-600 and A340-500 are not completely over yet...

I missed who said that it was.

Flying over the pacific on a twin is defenitely not the safest of all solutions - the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes

Why is it not? Did the United aircraft that exceeded the rules by 12 minutes meet disaster?

Would you care to actually construct a post that contains material suitable for logical argument rather than sweeping generalisations based on your, presumably unqualified, opinion and prejudices?

[logan]

The Time limit on any ETOPS flight be it 120/180/207 etc, is a regultory figure that is based on an agreed speed (that the aircraft often does not do in practice) and still air. If an ETOPS aircraft is operating right on the edge of it's range circle and it looses an engine or goes down to 10,000 it WILL exceed the time limit no question, and this is still perfectly legal.

[Avman]

If an ETOPS aircraft is operating right on the edge of it's range circle and it looses an engine or goes down to 10,000 it WILL exceed the time limit no question, and this is still perfectly legal.

The niggling problem I have with all these "legal" issues is whether they are in fact SAFE. And for me, 180 (or 207) should mean just that. If you start making exceptions where do they end?

[Joetom]

I am sure flying on one engine is fine.

However, it would be interesting to have a video of cockpit during these operations.

I remember reading years ago about these ETOPS and they mentioned a case when a twin had control problems on one engine(poss bleed valves stuck open) and only about 50% power avail on that engine, this was OK.

But other engine had oil leak and crew noticed oil reducing, they diverted very quick and all was OK.

Think after crew noticed leak, engine had about 75mins left till out of oil.

Lucky they were not on the 207 time zone when this occured.

Think it was a PAN AM A310 in the early 1990's, does anybody have the details.

[Trash Hauler]

ETOPS is about managing risk to an acceptable level. Following an initial failure of the engine, what is the risk of a subsequent failure occuring within the 180/207 minute period that would result in a catastrophe. If the risk is small enough then it is considered SAFE.

[Jordan D]

At the risk of sounding like a Mod (and apologies to Mod's if I'm stepping on toes), but is this not thread drift of the worse kind?

Jordan

[woodpecker]

The only problem with some of these posts is they drift into "what if". Perhaps under 180mins rule with an engine failure "what if" the opposite wing fell off!

I deal in facts. I flew for 35 years, 20 on the Trident and 15 on the 757,767, and 777. In that time I never had an engine failure on the aircraft, thousands on the simulator, but none on the aircraft.

ETOPS (or EROPS as it used to be called) whether it is 120,180 or 207 is all about risk. Obviously there are risks heading out across the pond, across Canada or across Russia on two engines but surely it is about level of risk. Ignoring fuel contamination (which would affect a 747/340) the chances of both engines failing on one flight is so remote as to be ignored.

I only know one chap personally within the airline who shut down an engine half way across the pond on a 767. After having his meal disrupted (and the actual shutdown procedures) the only problem was that there was very little to do during the 90mins "on one". It's all in the mind, looking at the single engine whirring away normally, but is that not what thousands of private aviators do all their lives?

It would seem on this forum that there are so many that fit in to the (humorous) bracket of a friend on 747 who stated "Wouldn't get me across the pond on a twin. The only reason I bid for the 747 was that there was nothing in the airline with five engines"

Bring a little more reality into this discussion and a little less sensationalism, leave that to the tabloid press.

[pax2908]

Does anyone know, where the engine will be changed?
UIII 181200Z 25003MPS CAVOK M14/M20 Q1033 NOSIG RMK QFE729/0973 30810240
(I hope not outside!)

[barit1]

The niggling problem I have with all these "legal" issues is whether they are in fact SAFE.

SAFE compared to what? Walking across the street?

Safety is not a binary issue. It is not like the "safety" on a firearm one switches on and off.

Professionals measure safety as a real quantity - xxx events per million hours, or whatever.

[RatherBeFlying]

Passengers will be flown with IL 96 to Moscow and then transfered to CDG Me -- I'd be taking the train from Irkutsk rather than any local domestic carrier:uhoh:

[barit1]

Me -- I'd be taking the train from Irkutsk rather than any local domestic carrier

I'd prefer to continue to CDG in the triple7 on one, unless AF had some other issue that hasn't been mentioned!

(BTW, what's the MEA over the Urals?)

[speech]

Maybe on a A340 you could continue on (still) 3 engines and avoid all these inconveniences?

[barit1]

Only if you're not in FAA airspace...

[Witraz]

ETOPS is a planning exercise to comply with the legal requirements. Once on the aircraft it becomes airmanship and practical solutions. For example: On an Atlantic crossing, if the weather at planning stage at Shannon was below the legal planning limits, somewhere like Dublin is used if suitable. However if one did suffer an engine failure and turned back, on checking the weather at Shannon and it was above limits, being closer this would be the nearest suitable airfield to land. Equally if the planned weather at Shannon at planning was suitable, but had deteriorated, it would be acceptable to fly pass Shannon and use the next suitable airfield. If you need to fly for more than 180 minutes to find a suitable airfield where you can carry out a safe landing, so be it. I don't think anyone would like to do this, and I would like to think the odds are unlikely that you will loose an engine at the most distant point from an airfield in flight.

A question then: Having suffered an engine failure, crossing the Atlantic in winter, Reykjavik is 20 minutes closer than returning to Shannon, however Reykjavik's weather is forecast at below freezing, gusting 45kts in snow showers, and Shannon is calm and CAVOK. Reykjavik is the nearest suitable, which is the more SENSIBLE...........

I was discussing Irkutsk recently about this very subject, more to consider the temperatures here. It can get to -60C, I think they were AF were lucky it was only -14C

[WHBM]

How silly.

The Russian passenger carriers are quite competent at handling such a flight. If they are being forwarded in an Il-96 that will be one of a handful of carriers who use them, all of whom are fully up to Western standards - in fact compared to the US majors the catering will be a sight better, as will the attitude of the FAs.

[Airbus340FO]

Just for info, the 180 minute time limit is only a planning limit for the alternate airport. If you got an emergency, it is up to you, if you need a longer time period. It is totally legal to fly slower and to need more time. Most important is anyhow the safe operation. ETOPS pilot should know that. The crew which needed 12 minutes more was absolutely legal. No big deal. Just imagine you are forced to go around and you can´t because you got the 180 minute time limit !

[topoftheloop]

woodpecker

not quite right, reality looks different !
do a research and you will be surprised about the number of engine failures in recent years, especially on the 777 ( maybe more a problem of the engine manufacturer )

and thats why I will not let my family fly across the pacific
or the north pole on a twin, very simple

[woodpecker]

Bottomofthepile,

Well, from the number of twins across the Atlantic it looks like the QE2 might just be the only option for your family then....

[BOAC]

.....hang on! How many donks does that have, then?

[Golden Ticket]

Anorak time, QE2 has 9 diesel engines which provide power to drive two elctric motors each 9m in diameter but only requires seven engines to run at service speed. Thread creep I know but interesting.

[M.Mouse]

do a research and you will be surprised about the number of engine failures in recent years, especially on the 777

Would you mind expanding your reasoning further and stating how many of those failures occured on twins maintained to ETOPS standard, how many occured in ETOPS sectors and how many resulted in a hull loss.

Or perhaps you prefer to make decisions based purely on emotion.

[BusyB]

Witraz,
It is patently obvious with that wx that Reykjavik is no longer the nearest suitable.

[BOAC]

power to drive two electric motors - see - everything is flawed:D

Hope there is a RAT.

[John Farley]

M.Mouse

Precisely

JF

[FBW390]

Answer to Speech:
Yes, of course, on a 340 you would continue on 3 and avoid all these problems and delays...

[pax2908]

I am sorry for not making any professional comments (I am not a pilot) but I continue to be interested and to learn from what is posted here. But, I tend to disagree with the statement:

"how many of those failures occured on twins maintained to ETOPS standard, how many occured in ETOPS sectors and how many resulted in a hull loss".

Is it not true that airplanes today are so safe that a problem is not likely to develop into a "hull loss". Does it imply that there is nothing to be improved? Perhaps that counting "hull losses" is not good enough to measure safety?

[barit1]

Hull losses are only a gross measure of safety. A hull loss may imply zero deaths, or 850 deaths.

Most air safety systems have automated or voluntary incident reporting. The incidents may have almost no safety implication by themselves (HUGE redundancy in a properly run airline), but are indicators of something that didn't go as planned or could otherwise be improved.

Based on these minutia, it is fairly straightforward to compute the propability of A+B+C+D all failing on a single flight, together presenting a genuine safety concern.

And you'd be amazed at how small the number is, compared to the risk of crossing the street.

[Gargleblaster]

Sorry to be pedantic, but normally, you don't want to land in Reykjavík (BIRK) in anything bigger than a Fokker (any model). You'll be waking up half of the island's population when reversing. You however want to land in Keflavík (BIKF) :D

[JW411]

It was impossible to get a fully-loaded Liberator out of Reykjavik in 1945. They had to go to Meeks Field for operational take-offs.

What with all of the usual thread creep I just thought you would like to know that!

[slingsby]

GE90 being flown out along with the associated engineering spares and equipment as I type, on board Volga Dnepr AN124. So the change is being done in Irkutsk. There is hangerage but not large or safe enough by the looks of it for a B777.

[Pinky95]

I believe the MOCA is around FL115 on that route, nothing a 777 can't handle on one engine.

ETOPS is all about planning, as long as that part is covered the actual flight can go over those limits or you might choose another alternate if it's better/nearer by.
Although willingly flying over 3 hours on one engine remains doubtfull, the checklist tells us to land at the "nearest suitable airport" and I sure as hell will! :-)

[gas path]

GE90 being flown out along with the associated engineering spares and equipment as I type, on board Volga Dnepr AN124.
We've used them too for a '90, so AF are not going to attempt a fan/core split:hmm: The GE90 is a tight fit even in that huge fuselage with some very careful handling required by the IPL operators.

[MarkD]

I understood there were limits on 4 engine press-on due to engine windmilling.

[Carnage Matey!]

Never heard of them on the four engine aircraft I fly, and we don't 'press on', we 'continue' if appropriate.

[barit1]

I have heard of engines with a windmilling limitation, but they are relatively few I think.

[lomapaseo]

I have heard of engines with a windmilling limitation, but they are relatively few I think.

Interesting, how is that regulated?

[MarkD]

carnage

no insult intended! Was thinking of some of the talk after the BA 744 ex LAX.

[woodpecker]

Was thinking of some of the talk after the BA 744 ex LAX

MarkD,

Must have missed that thread, perhaps you could give us a precis!

[FL480]

Still waiting for a new engine..
An124 carrying the GE couldn't reach AF 777 because of snow.

[barit1]

re Windmilling -
Interesting, how is that regulated?

Two aspects:

Safety - even if a windmilling engine should seize, the loads should be negligible compared to an operating engine, for which certification criteria have been demonstrated.

Resulting damage (economic loss) from windmilling - that's a matter between the motormaker and the airline. As long as the crew follows the recommendations, it's up to the engine manufacturer to make good any adversely-affected hardware.

[MarkD]

woody
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164208&highlight=windmilling+LAX
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173143&highlight=windmilling+744

[barit1]

Pretty good windwilling exchange on p.7 of the latter thread (above)

[WHBM]

An124 carrying the GE couldn't reach AF 777 because of snow.
Ah yes, it's the Russian winter. Didn't the French learn anything from Napoleon about the issues ......

[gas path]

Word has it that the engine failure was the result of a composite fan blade failing....


Stage 1 of the HP compressor had a blade failure I 'm led to believe, the engine has just reached GE Wales O/H facility, so it will soon be known for certain after teardown.

[GotTheTshirt]

I find it interesting that the ETOPS failure mode in this thread only refers to engine failures :confused:

During the test program one one of the 7's ( 767/777 ?)
They suffered a failure of a fuselage pressurisation Non return valve which not only got them down from flightlevel tremendous very quickly but on one of them ( I think there were 2 incidents) put some of the crew in hospital:uhoh:

Of course the valve has been modified so this cannot possibly happen again :)

[Sqwak7700]

"I'd prefer to continue to CDG in the triple7 on one.."

That was halarious. I just about spit up my tea when I read that. :} :} :}

Its not that I think Russian carriers are unsafe, but the tought of riding in a converted military aircraft across Siberia in the winter is somewhat uncomforting.

Reminds me of when I went to Peru. I chose the airline very carefully when it came to buying a ticket from Lima to Cuzco. We finaly decided on TACA after looking at equipment type and age. When I was in line to board the brand new A320 we passed one of Aerocontinente's geriatric 737s with built in airstairs and fuselage painted by hand. I really felt that I had made the right decision. But I digress... :=

[wakpilot]

Just a quick question re the previous ETOPS debate-are we talking about a least worst scanario or worst worst (as in preasure loss) becasue that makes quite a difference in performace and altitude calulations-25k v 10k and associated fule burn-the 207 min across the pacific on a least worst is fine-BUT-loss of preasure and then what?

[armada]

A question then: Having suffered an engine failure, crossing the Atlantic in winter, Reykjavik is 20 minutes closer than returning to Shannon, however Reykjavik's weather is forecast at below freezing, gusting 45kts in snow showers, and Shannon is calm and CAVOK. Reykjavik is the nearest suitable, which is the more SENSIBLE...........


Excellent point, in that case the "cure" may do more damage than the "disease"...

[FullWings]

Just a quick question re the previous ETOPS debate-are we talking about a least worst scanario or worst worst (as in preasure loss) becasue that makes quite a difference in performace and altitude calulations-25k v 10k and associated fule burn-the 207 min across the pacific on a least worst is fine-BUT-loss of preasure and then what?
I would have thought the worst-case scenario. When we fly a sector with an ETOPS part near the end of the flight, we often carry extra fuel to cope with flying low level from the critical point onwards. The AF 777 in this thread might actually have been flying non-ETOPS as there are normally enough airfields across Siberia to do this.

[Fly3]

Our Trents have a 7 hour windmill limit but that assumes that there is no oil or oil pressure available. If the engine has been shut down for reasons other than loss of oil/ oil pressure and the windmilling is producing some oil pressure then there is no limit.

[finessemax]

Interesting pictures about the engine replacement to be found here :http://airvb.free.fr/irk/irk.htm
Not much fun when the temperature drops to -34° c !

[pax2908]

finessemax, thanks for the link. I am impressed! Congratulations to all involved. (When did this happen? I would certainly like to read the story if someone who was there decides to write about it.)