Malaysian 777 engine problem in Stockholm [Archive]

Hot Rod

4th Nov 2006, 08:46

Yesterday a Malaysian 777 had to return after takeoff due to engine problem. Dumped fuel and landed without problems.

Some pictures and text (swedish) here: http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=740274

The aircraft arrived late from New York and one newspaper here in Sweden says that it was because of engine problems in New York.

Anyone with more info?

vapilot2004

4th Nov 2006, 21:09

I can only add the obvious which is the aircraft would have been a B777-200ER. Rumour has it that they were headed to KUL which would have made it flight MH091.

Likely was reg 9M-MRI as they were just in EWR on 2/11 and scheduled to return to KUL via Stockholm on 3/11.

Longtimer

4th Nov 2006, 23:47

It seems like there is an increasing incidence of engine loss, is it better reporting or indeed more frequent events????

barit1

5th Nov 2006, 00:22

And now this case of silver-rimming (http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=208071)getting the Mumbai bash. :eek:

vapilot2004

5th Nov 2006, 07:31

Hi resolution photo added Nov 5 to the a.nut website here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1134244/L/) showing debris and smoke trailing from the port engine.

hetfield

5th Nov 2006, 07:36

Hi resolution photo added Nov 5 to the a.nut website here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1134244/L/) showing debris and smoke trailing from the port engine.

Looks like burned oil.

Load Toad

5th Nov 2006, 07:42

Maybe looks like burned oil....does burned oil have rather large white looking fragments in it as you can see in the photo?

Bearcat

5th Nov 2006, 07:43

it begs the question re the recent AD re having to use TOGA on the GE 90s......115000lbs of poke is an awful lot of energy to expend on every take off.

Or they GE's on the aircraft in ?

vapilot2004

5th Nov 2006, 07:43

HF, Agreed on the smoke. :ok:

Just heard that this A/C may have just come off some heavy maintenance recently. (C or D check was due ?) only a rumour at this point, but from a reliable source. ;)

BC, pretty sure MHs 777s are all RR powered.

threemiles

5th Nov 2006, 07:58

HF, Agreed on the smoke. :ok:
Just heard that this A/C may have just come off some heavy maintenance recently. (C or D check was due ?) only a rumour at this point, but from a reliable source. ;)
BC, pretty sure MHs 777s are all RR powered.

Engines wouldn't be touched.

gas path

5th Nov 2006, 08:45

They are Rolls Royce Trent 800's

suppie

5th Nov 2006, 19:07

Very nice picture on a.net...clearely that he blew nbr 1 eng...can't believe though that the capt did not get any indication in the cockpit:=

Zeffy

5th Nov 2006, 21:14

The airliners.net pic doesn't show any evidence of significant rudder/aileron deflections -- would the engine likely be developing normal or near-normal thrust?

JamesT73J

5th Nov 2006, 21:44

HotDog

5th Nov 2006, 21:55

can't believe though that the capt did not get any indication in the cockpit He obviously did, otherwise they would not have returned to Stockholm. Looks like it happened just as they were retracting the gear.

hetfield

6th Nov 2006, 07:51

The airliners.net pic doesn't show any evidence of significant rudder/aileron deflections -- would the engine likely be developing normal or near-normal thrust?

I guess so. Until it was shut down by the crew.
Looks like a blown bearing.

Bus429

6th Nov 2006, 08:15

Engines wouldn't be touched.
Threemile - engines not touched on a "C" check? Seems a bit strange to me.

Just heard that this A/C may have just come off some heavy maintenance recently. (C or D check was due ?) only a rumour at this point, but from a reliable source.
Vapilot - what relevance would a recent heavy maintenance check have in this regard? Although there is a chance of a maintenance error, this is a bit speculative.

BAe146s make me cry

6th Nov 2006, 09:12

Threemiles

Sorry, engines not touched?? You've got to be joking!

Even the very latest FADEC Powerplants require attention,
AND certainly during a maintenance check!

BAe146??:{ :{

vapilot2004

6th Nov 2006, 09:48

The failing engine appears to be missing the circular 'collar' shaped structure (I don't know the correct name for it) just forward of the exhaust cone - are the remains of this perhaps what is being ejected aft?

Good eyes there JT! I see that in the pic. That collar is the exhaust shroud - couple of inches forward are where the turbines reside.

Threemile - engines not touched on a "C" check? Seems a bit strange to me.
Vapilot - what relevance would a recent heavy maintenance check have in this regard? Although there is a chance of a maintenance error, this is a bit speculative.

I know the aircraft was out of service for a while. The check was just a guess. Wasn't my intention to imply any faulty maintenance work. At least 99% of the time, things are better after major maintenance - not worse. :ok:

Could a D check be completed in 2 weeks on this aicraft?

bobdbuilder

6th Nov 2006, 11:00

I guess so. Until it was shut down by the crew.
Looks like a blown bearing.

If the engine was shut down by the crew, why did they go dump fuel over the ocean?...risking loosing the second engine.

Id rather be on the ground having done an overwight landing rather then risk being over the ocean when i loose the second engine.

Or are procedures different on the 777?

Thanks

hetfield

6th Nov 2006, 11:02

EY777

6th Nov 2006, 14:35

If the engine was shut down by the crew, why did they go dump fuel over the ocean?...risking loosing the second engine.
Id rather be on the ground having done an overwight landing rather then risk being over the ocean when i loose the second engine.
Or are procedures different on the 777?

Guess it's early season, but the 'monday morning quarterbacks' are out :=
Whatever decisions were made in the cockpit bob, I guessed they were the right ones as they got the plane down in one piece with all lives accounted for :ok:

Swedish Steve

6th Nov 2006, 16:21

Sorry this is a bit slow, I have been at work all weekend in the hangar at ARN.
The D Duct inner wall disintegrated on ratation. What you can see is glass fibre deris leaving the aircraft. The crew were advised by ATC. At 6000ft, the fan air stream pushed the exhaust nozzle into the core exit and the engine surged. The crew pulled it back to idle, but had no cockpit indications. The engine was left running at idle until it landed after dumping 60tons of fuel. The engine only suffered impact damage to the exhaust nozzle, a firewire and a oil scavenge pipe. Boroscopes OK. The left flaperon also suffered impact damage and is being changed.
We have changed the D duct., replaced blankets in the left D Duct, replaced the fire wire and the oil tube. We are awaiting a sling for the flaperon which comes from BA tomorrow morning.
All the spares came on a MH freighter which was rerouted to ARN.
Boeing Seattle and RR Derby have inspected the damage and concur that it was delamination, and no FOD or engine defect.
It has happened to the Trent 892 before and is the subject of an AD.

Bus429

7th Nov 2006, 17:56

Have a look at this (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/11/07/210474/Pictures+Onlookers+stunned+by+spectacular+Trent+800+engine+f ailure+on+Malaysian+Boeing+777-200ER.html), particularly remark about people purporting to be maintenance engineers.

Swedish Steve

7th Nov 2006, 18:43

Danny

7th Nov 2006, 20:06

Initial inspections teams from by Boeing Seattle and from R-R have concluded that blade delamination on the core of the reverser was the probable cause, a source within the maintenance provider has told Flight. No engine defect or operational issue was found by preliminary inspections.
Oh, come on Flight Global. At least have the conviction to acknowledge your real "source"! :rolleyes:

barit1

7th Nov 2006, 21:24

...R-R have concluded that blade delamination...

....No engine defect or operational issue ...

How's that again? :rolleyes:

QNH1013

8th Nov 2006, 02:46

Same D Duct came off a Cathay 777 Trent at Bangkok take off in 2004. Except a big piece landed on someones car! No wonder an AD out on it.

Fargoo

8th Nov 2006, 05:03

Looks like you're only purporting to be an engineer Steve.
Good excuse to use when you get a real crippler of a job.
" Sorry Boss, can't do that toilet tank - i'm only purporting to be an engineer! " :E

Fargoo :ok:

lasernigel

8th Nov 2006, 07:17

Reading the FAA report and it's AD.All I can say is look at my moniker and the cracking problems on the root and shear key have been resolved.I will say no more.:ok:

Algy

8th Nov 2006, 09:10

Sorry, sorry, no disrespect intended.

1. We handled the story clumsily. Apologies.
2. Should have linked to Pprune. Apologies, nothing sinister, just in a rush.
3. Unlike other sites we don't accept anonymous forum credentials at face value. The guy involved has no idea who or what Swedish Steve is.
4. Unlike other sites we don't nick people's photos and we tracked down and paid the photographer as we always do.

Not our finest moment, but just a guy trying to do the right thing.

Algy

JetMech

8th Nov 2006, 09:10

This quote has got me stumped :confused:,

"Initial inspections teams from by Boeing Seattle and from R-R have concluded that blade delamination on the core of the reverser was the probable cause, a source within the maintenance provider has told Flight."

Besides the atrocious grammar, since when have there been blades on the core of a thrust reverser? Either that or I must be missing something very critical here.
I am a bit surprised that a website that deals with aviation would let this one slip by.

It is amazing that the writer has accused someone of supposedly being a maintenance engineer when he himself seems to know far less :confused: . Any way, thanks for the updates Swedish Steve :) !

Bus429

8th Nov 2006, 09:24

Swedish Steve,
I wasn't implying you were not an AME; your post indicates you are! I was having a go at Flight Global who, to their credit through Algy's post, have clarified their position.

lomapaseo

8th Nov 2006, 13:02

I simply substituted the word vanes for the word blades in the article and read away content

JetMech

9th Nov 2006, 05:34

I simply substituted the word vanes for the word blades in the article and read away content

"Initial inspections teams from by Boeing Seattle and from R-R have concluded that vane delamination on the core of the reverser was the probable cause, a source within the maintenance provider has told Flight."

Mmmm.... still don't quite get it :confused: . Perhaps he misspelled bad?

Fargoo

9th Nov 2006, 08:33

Cascade vanes?

matkat

9th Nov 2006, 10:34

Threemiles

Sorry, engines not touched?? You've got to be joking!

Even the very latest FADEC Powerplants require attention,
AND certainly during a maintenance check!

BAe146??:{ :{
Complete service would have been done specifically fluids, seals gaskets and filter, mag plugs, spark plugs and maybe a borescope,
not touched yes he must have been kidding

matkat

9th Nov 2006, 10:36

"Initial inspections teams from by Boeing Seattle and from R-R have concluded that vane delamination on the core of the reverser was the probable cause, a source within the maintenance provider has told Flight."
Mmmm.... still don't quite get it :confused: . Perhaps he misspelled bad?

as the cascades are in the cold stream where has the smoke come from:hmm: ?

lomapaseo

9th Nov 2006, 13:08

as the cascades are in the cold stream where has the smoke come from:hmm: ?

broken external oil scavange line ?

That stuff is smokey

Swedish Steve

9th Nov 2006, 16:54

Well MRI is flying home as I write.
We took it out for runs Wed night and the engine performed normally.
The aircraft left ARN 0347 this morning. (no night jet ban here).
The work to the engine consisted of a firewire replacement and two thermocouples and the exhaust nozzle. Rest of work was on the D Ducts and the flaperon.

The smoke you can see was fibreglass.

JetMech

11th Nov 2006, 03:38

I am not sure if the cascade vanes had anything to do with it. As mentioned earlier, the damage was to the inner region of the "D" duct, as shown by these photos on the following discussion thread;

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/172795/

The cascade vanes are located under the translating TR sleeve on the outer part of the "D" duct. Further photos appear on the following discussion thread;

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3082811/

Le Pen

11th Nov 2006, 04:27

Algy said
3. Unlike other sites we don't accept anonymous forum credentials at face value. The guy involved has no idea who or what Swedish Steve is.

:) :} :\ :E :}
Nice one Steve, you're a "what" now. When I was with you guys last year I KNEW there weas something odd about you! :p
Nice one!
LP