Air France lose B777 ETOPS 180'

[ftrplt_fr]

Due to the last engine failure on one of its Triple Seven, the Air France B777 ETOPS is lowered to 120'. That was the second in flight failure on the last two years. Bad day for the french company. Edit : that was just a rumor, Af didn't lost its ETOPS 180.

[Kengineer-130]

I don't really see how you can blame the company for an engine failure? :bored:Unfortunatly being the nature of the beast, despite vast maintainance programmes somtimes these things just happen :(

[J-Class]

I know I am a neanderthal Luddite lousy pax but - despite all the best servicing and the indisputable math of ETOPS and everything - I still love a four-holer. (Hides underneath desk anticipating torrent of flames)

[Caboclo]

Amen, brother. :D

[lomapaseo]

Due to the last engine failure on one of its Triple Seven, the Air France B777 ETOPS is lowered to 120'. That was the second in flight failure on the last two years. Bad day for the french company.

any substantiation to this rumor.

Single events don't mean much, linkages do

[Loose rivets]

Randomness comes in lumps.

[ATC Watcher]

any substantiation to this rumor.

Just reading a report where I see that yes they lost 180 but it is not yet sure to what they will revert to ( 120 or 138 ) .
If the problems that cause this are due to the engine conception then it will affect all aircraft equipped with that engine model. If it is caused to airline maintenance deficiencies or specific utilization , then it will only affect AF.
The A340-600 is back in favor ...:E

[Whitehatter]

It should just be precautionary until there is a proper materials analysis on the failed motor, to see what caused the bang and flash.

[DoNotFeed]

Yes the A346 is a solution. But first you have to pull them from swamp or fence, depending on altitude.
sorry was along nite over the pond:}

[Capt Fathom]

despite all the best servicing and the indisputable math of ETOPS and everything - I still love a four-holer

...and double the chance of an engine failure! :E

[bvcu]

AF cant use 346 because it uses a 'foreign' engine '. A lot of people are not aware of the french state tie up with GE engines [dont think they've been privatised yet] Also the ETOPS consideration is in flight shut down rate , cant remember the figures but its tiny. This quite often happens voluntarily until a problem is resolved, especially as there may be related ongoing problems with this engine that have not resulted in IFSD , but could be related. Also the reality is that you may not be using the full 180/207 mins ETOPS so that downgrading it has minimal operational impact most of the time except when you get weather problems etc at certain times of the year on certain routes.

[lomapaseo]

AF cant use 346 because it uses a 'foreign' engine '. A lot of people are not aware of the french state tie up with GE engines [dont think they've been privatised yet] Also the ETOPS consideration is in flight shut down rate , cant remember the figures but its tiny. This quite often happens voluntarily until a problem is resolved, especially as there may be related ongoing problems with this engine that have not resulted in IFSD , but could be related. Also the reality is that you may not be using the full 180/207 mins ETOPS so that downgrading it has minimal operational impact most of the time except when you get weather problems etc at certain times of the year on certain routes.

I see ... so throwing a fish off the dog sled ought to keep the wolves away.

maybe someday they will escalate this kind of response to all aircraft types including 4 engine machines.

[Rwy in Sight]

Does it make any difference if the IFSD occured in the ETOPS or not ETOPS area of the flight?


Rwy in Sight

[ARINC]

Quote:
despite all the best servicing and the indisputable math of ETOPS and everything - I still love a four-holer

...and double the chance of an engine failure!

As an aside to the bus drivers here

Could your Average load A340-600 struggle to the nearest ETOPS type diversion having had a double IFSD mid pond ? Whats the drift down ? or would you keep going to destination :E

[sekant]

"AF cant use 346 because it uses a 'foreign' engine '. A lot of people are not aware of the french state tie up with GE engines [dont think they've been privatised yet] "

Could you expand on that. I know that for short-haul, Air France sticks to CFM-56, and that is because this engine is jointly built by Snecma (a French company, partly owned by government) and GE.

But for long-haul, it uses GE made engines, that is engines 100 % american. It sticks to only a single supplier for these "long-haul engines" for reasons of costs/rationality and not, as far as I know, for questions of promoting the national industry.

Am I mistaken ??

[BRE]

Actually, AF have plenty of A342 and A343 both of which have >30% higher maximum payload range than the 777-300ER.

[tristar 500]

Rwy in sight
Does it make any difference if the IFSD occured in the ETOPS or not ETOPS area of the flight?

No it`s the inflight shut down rate that counts.

Tristar 500

[pax2908]

Again sorry for a non-professional comment - it seems to me that the beyond the 2-engine vs the 4-engine argument, the question is about the reliability of the newest 115B engine. Surely much more must be known about the engine(s) powering the 747-400? Would it make sense to ask, how many "total hours" of (monitored) operation is sufficient to grant ETOPSXXX certification?

[Airbubba]

Would it make sense to ask, how many "total hours" of (monitored) operation is sufficient to grant ETOPSXXX certification?

Don't know about the French but for the U.S. under the new ETOPS regs:

The second part of the approval process is an evaluation of engine
in-flight shutdowns and other significant airplane system failures that
have occurred while the airplane-engine combination has been in
service. The candidate airplane-engine combination should accumulate at
least 250,000 engine-hours of service experience for a meaningful
evaluation, although the AC [FAA Advisory Circular 120-42A ] allows a lower number of hours with
adequate compensating factors.

Also:

With the introduction of the Boeing Model 777, the FAA introduced a
new method for an applicant to obtain an ETOPS type design approval
without the service experience required for an approval under AC 120-
42A. This method is known as the ``early ETOPS'' approval process.
The early ETOPS process takes a systems approach to the development
of an airplane and engine. Without service experience to identify
design flaws that could lead to in-flight shutdowns or diversions, an
applicant must demonstrate that the design flaws on previously designed
airplanes are not present in the new airplane. The applicant must also
consider how the maximum length flight and diversion affect the design
and function of airplane systems to ensure that they have the
capability and reliability for safe ETOPS flight.
Rigorous ground and flight tests are required to demonstrate that
the airplane-engine combination can successfully support an ETOPS
program, including validation of maintenance procedures for systems
whose failures could lead to an engine in-flight shutdown or a
diversion. An enhanced problem reporting and resolution system
identifies and corrects significant problems before the airplane is
certified. After approval, this same system remains in place during the
early service period to identify and correct such problems before they
can lead to additional in-flight shutdowns and diversions.


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-39.htm

[787FOCAL]

Have not lost it yet.

[MarkD]

sekant - I think what's being said is that GE's CFMI tie up with Snecma may have included a commitment by the French via their controlling shareholding to make AF buy GE - Snecma also have a JV (CFAN) on the GE90-115B:
http://www.le-webmag.com/article.php3?id_article=46&lang=en

AF-KLM have issued an RFP for something in the 787/350 market but insist that it run GE which may cause Airbus some problems as GE haven't agreed an engine on the 350XWB platform yet.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.47UjX.Q9lM&refer=home

It may also be the reason they insisted on a CFM engined A318 when Airbus were originally going to be solely PW6000 on that platform (although some might say it was lucky they did insist, given the development delays the PW6K suffered).

[pax2908]

Airbubba, thank you very much! A key phrase is 'demonstrate' [...] without service experience (for 'early ETOPS'). I guess that today there may be enough engine-hours with the 773-GE115 to satisfy even the 'conventional' rule AC 120-42A? I have not yet read everything in the link posted, but I assume that the AC 120-42A will 'take over' as soon as the service experience required has been met?

Thanks!

[constable dean]

Well said, totally agree.:D

[Old Aero Guy]

Actually, AF have plenty of A342 and A343 both of which have >30% higher maximum payload range than the 777-300ER. (Reply17)

Huh? I'm sure this must be news to AF and the rest of the aviation world. The A342/3 payload range capability can't even match the 772ER much less the 773ER. Are you thinking of the 773?

On the main topic though.

I believe the 773ER has recently completed 1.3 million engine flight hours with three IFSD of GE90-115B's.

www.alleventsgroup.com/archives_presentations.php?id=1&file=MTcgT2N0IC0gQ2hha2VyIENoYWhyb3VyIChHRSBBd

Doing the math gives an IFSD rate of 2.3x10-6.

Required IFSD rate for 180 min. ETOPS is .02X10-3.

The GE90-115B failure rate could be 10 times higher without jeopardizing its 180 min ETOPS capability.

[Georgemorris]

Maths,chaps! Although it is true that the probability of a shutdown on a four-jet is double that of a twin, the probability of two shutdowns on the same. day is much smaller. If you don't believe me consider the case of (say) a B52 How often do they lose four engines at the same time?! Whether the four jet is safer or not depends (of course) on whether it will fly on two engines and for how long.

[Basil-Fawlty]

:cool:
With all due respect some of you obviously do not know much about ETOP rules. losing an ETOP has nothing to do with whether the airline had problems or faults for reasons beyond their control.The aircraft manufacturer must obtain type design approval from the applicable regulatory authority for the airframe and the engine combination to achieve Sufficient level of reliability in service so that Safe Extended Range Operation may be conducted based on ;

120 Minutes IFSD 00.027 each 1000 engine/hours
180 Minutes IFSD=0.022 each 1000 engine/hours

And the type design reliability and performance IAW AC 120-42 (CMP) of configuration maintenance and procedure from the manufacturer.

But then again I am only a hotel owner in Torquay what do I know about ETOP FAA AC 120.42A Rules!




Safe flying to all from Sybil,Polly and Manuel!:ok:

[Airbubba]

With all due respect some of you obviously do not know much about ETOP rules. losing an ETOP has nothing to do with whether the airline had problems or faults for reasons beyond their control.

Well, just to clarify, the airline needs ETOPS certification in addition to the type approval of the engine airframe combination. ETOPS certification can and has been pulled for various carriers over the years. Pan Am lost 120 minute ETOPS for a while a couple of decades ago due to problems with the PW4000 engines.

But then again I am only a hotel owner in Torquay what do I know about ETOP FAA AC 120.42A Rules

No need to apologize, I know nothing about running a hotel...

[Dryce]

With regard to riding with 4 or 2 of the noisy bits hanging of the wings.

I'd choose to go with the one that had the FE - if I actually had a choice.

[Algy]

Financial share is: GE 60.5%; Snecma 23.5%; IHI Japan 9%; FiatAvio 7%. (http://www.safran-group.com/article.php3?id_article=806&lang=en)

(So moderately American I suppose - certainly not 100% as stated.)

Also worth noting that AF didn't just select CFM for A318, it was them that essentially forced Airbus to offer CFM. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/08/11/54924/air-france-a318-win-fuels-cfmi-ambitions-for-power-sharing.html) Would have been PW6000-only if Airbus had its way.

[BRE]

@ Old Aero Guy

Either Wikipedia've got their figures wrong or I have trouble understanding the definitions:


"range fully loaded":
A342: 8000 nm
A343: 7400 nm
A346: 7750 / 7900 nm (depending on engine)

the corresponding figure for the 777 would have to be "max. payload range":
B777-300ER 5500 nm

max range is given as 7930 nm, but that would be with reduced payload

or were you thinking about the 777-200LR which does have a may payload range of 7500 nm, i.e. slightly above the A343 but below A342?




if (and that is more of an IF) "range with max. passengers" is the same as "range fully loaded" and "max. payload range", then even the A330 compares favorably:

A332: 6749 nm
A333: 5669 nm

[DoNotFeed]

To get this right. A full load needs to be expressed in weight then compare the range.

A340 300 max payload ~ 50 tonnes range 6000NM.

B777 200ER (not LR) ~ 60 tonnes range 7500NM.

regards

[sekant]

"Financial share is: GE 60.5%; Snecma 23.5%; IHI Japan 9%; FiatAvio 7%. (http://www.safran-group.com/article.php3?id_article=806&lang=en)

(So moderately American I suppose - certainly not 100% as stated.)

Also worth noting that AF didn't just select CFM for A318, it was them that essentially forced Airbus to offer CFM. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/08/11/54924/air-france-a318-win-fuels-cfmi-ambitions-for-power-sharing.html) Would have been PW6000-only if Airbus had its way."

Thanks, so I stood to be corrected. I suppose then that Air France does abide by some sort of national industrial policy - although, if that was their primary criteria, they would not have so many 777 on their fleet.

[Iceman2]

As stated on an earlier topic, although the GE90-115B had a good first 3 years with no IFSD, they have now had 5 in the last 5 months. This burst of failures gives an approximate IFSD rate of

5*1000/(115*2*10*30*5) = 0.015/1000 Engine flight hours

Now this on the face of it is still below the (0.02) 180 ETOPS guidelines, although close to the 330 mins.

I believe this is the first AF IFSD, and therefore they may be taking a conservative approach in limiting ETOPS in light of the recent burst of 5 fleet IFSDs, the last (AF) one of which appears to be something of a more serious failure.

Perhaps Air France/authorities must be concerned over this recent St Petersburg failure - that it could be a problem they can not easily manage their way through, or just don't fully understand yet.

[panda-k-bear]

Perhaps the first of an AF GE90-115B but in December 2005, an AF 777 had to divert into Irkutsk due to engine issues en route Seoul to CDG (this flight is operated today by a -300ER but I don't know if the incident was to a -300ER or a -200ER); and, IIRC, it was an AF 777 that had to divert into Tenerife also due to engine issues a long time ago. It's certainly not an unknown phenomenon.

[BRE]

@donotfeed:

I still have trouble reconciling your info with that on wikipedia:

"A340 300 max payload ~ 50 tonnes range 6000NM"

vs. "range fully loaded: A343: 7400 nm"

either fully loaded and max payload are not the same or somebody's figures are wrong.

[panda-k-bear]

I suspect "fully loaded" means range with max passengers and "max payload" means volumetric payload.

Can we get back on topic?

[Iceman2]

panda-k-bear,

The Irkutsk AF incident 2 years ago was a 777-200ER with GE90-94Bs. Cause, if I recollect was a compressor blade failure causing surge/stall. This current one was a 777-300ER with GE90-115Bs.
I think the engines are slightly different beasts, therefore unlikely to be the same failure.

Don't recall the Tenerife incident - when was that?

[Basil-Fawlty]

Airbubba (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=2149):confused:
"ETOPS certification can and has been pulled for various carriers over the years. Pan Am lost 120 minute ETOPS for a while a couple of decades ago due to problems with the PW4000 engines."

:cool:I am not sure what kind of Airbubba you were smoking when you read my post or perhaps is the Waldorf Salad you eats on that side of the world that cause such a side effect. ETOP duration is based on reliability statistic. if you fall within the range then that what will determine the status the airline in whether is 120 or 180 Min. And that has nothing to do with Pan Am or Basel Fawlty Airline..or the price of a hotel room in Torquay!!!!.GOT IT!

And again Major Airbubba do accept my apology wont you as I am only a hotel owner in Torquay what do I know about ETOP FAA AC 120.42A Rules!


Safe flying to all from Sybil,Polly and Manuel!:ok:

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Reference "BRE" post, A340-600 depending on engine.
I thought it had only one type of engine of choice in that a Trent 500 is used in 4 positions.:confused:

[Old Aero Guy]

"range fully loaded":
A342: 8000 nm
A343: 7400 nm
A346: 7750 / 7900 nm (depending on engine)

the corresponding figure for the 777 would have to be "max. payload range":
B777-300ER 5500 nm (Reply 31)

The figures given above are for full passenger payloads on the A340's but MZFW payload on the 773ER. The full passenger range for the 773ER is comparable to the A346IGW, about 7900 nm.

[Old Aero Guy]

As stated on an earlier topic, although the GE90-115B had a good first 3 years with no IFSD, they have now had 5 in the last 5 months. (Reply 33)

Do you have a reference for the 5 IFSD's in the past five months? I believe the number is 3 IFSD's total.

This leads to the .0023 IFSD per 1000 engine hours I calculated in Reply 25.
How many engine hours are you using in Reply 33 to get a .015 per 1000 rate?

Besides, is it really true that AF has lost 180 min. ETOPS for the 777? There are some comments that say they haven't.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3725869/

See Reply 72

[alcorfr]

Hello, i'm a B777 F/0 at Air France, and i am in Mexico right now, my flight was ETOPS 180...

rumours, rumours...

cheers

[CargoOne]

alcorfr

I'm wondering what kind of routing you have flown, CDG-MEX works well without etops 180...

[Shaka Zulu]

CargoOne, who cares???
If he says his flight is DISPATCHED under ETOPS180 ruleset then the rumours are just that. Rumours

[keskildi]

ok, lets talk dirty

Air France has not lost any ETOPS agreement, period !



sorry to speak up about such a stupid thing, this story is full of b......it

the (false) rumour starded in France, through several air community information sites, blowing more and more air as time went by !

This story just needed two or three writers, well known in the internet community , on A-net and on the french 'pro pilot' site ... and that was enough to do the trick... and start the worldwide tornado on the net !

we have all been tricked, like it or not, that's a fact

[Iceman2]

Old Aero Guy

As stated on an earlier topic, although the GE90-115B had a good first 3 years with no IFSD, they have now had 5 in the last 5 months. (Reply 33)
Do you have a reference for the 5 IFSD's in the past five months? I believe the number is 3 IFSD's total.
This leads to the .0023 IFSD per 1000 engine hours I calculated in Reply 25.
How many engine hours are you using in Reply 33 to get a .015 per 1000 rate?
Besides, is it really true that AF has lost 180 min. ETOPS for the 777? There are some comments that say they haven't.


My own database is the reference for the 5 777-300ER x IFSDs, but there may be more. Here are the ones I know of

June 07 Air France, IFSD Diversion to Guadeloupe
August 07 ANA, IFSD return to Narita
Sept (30th 07) ???, IFSD, ??????
Oct 07 Emirates, IFSD, return to Bankok
Nov 07 Air France, IFSD Diversion to St PetersburgSo there are at least 2 AF IFSD (maybe 3) - I was wrong on mylast post in saying they only had 1.
The 0.015 I quoted was for the hours over the 5 months they have had this bunch of IFSDs (I'm sure that's the way the authorities will view it!), the calculation is shown in the post.

I have no idea about whether the AF ETOPS downgrading is true, but I am sure they have looked closely at it, especially if they have had 3 rather than 2 .

[pax2908]

Although stated earlier, only now I fully realize the "5 in 5 months". Is there more information about the other four events? Even of the type "understood / being adressed" or still unknown reason?

[Iceman2]

Who knows what truth there was in the Air France ETOPS rumour? Looks like that will all be surpassed by what has happened yesterday (see link).

It now appears that AF have had another IFSD, this time diverted to Rome. By all accounts (and who knows what the truth is) this is also a 777-300ER. This would make a sixth IFSD on that type and that engine (GE90-115B) since June 2007, three of them with Air France!

What is going on? This has got to be of concern to AF and DGAC surely.

[pax2908]

The title of this thread is still misleading, but there are fresh rumours about a very recent event involving a 773ER at AFR (emergency landing at FCO due to engine problem).

[Algy]

Iceman 2, what link???

[Palyvestre]

Algy.. Try this one and select only B777

http://www.crash-aerien.com/www/database/requete_af.php

[OVERTALK]

Two Air France B777-300ER planes grounded in two days
Source; http://www.crash-aerien.com/www/news/article1.php?id=7193&check=0
Paris (France) - For the second time in two days, an Air France B777-300ER plane has had to canceled its flight, the first one was headed to La Réunion and made an emergency landing in Rome-Fiumicino airport, the second one to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York but didn't take off, due to engine problems.
The first flight, between Paris-Orly and La Réunion, a french island in Indian Ocean, was diverted and made an emergency landing less than two hours after take-off in Rome-Fiumicino (Italy) because a technical glitch on one of its engines. After that, an inspection was conducted by the french company to check every GE90-115B engine through the Boeing 777-300 fleet owned by Air France.
A non-confirmed information given by an anonymous source link this inspection to the cancellation of the second flight, AF8, between Roissy-Paris airport and JFK-New York. Something wrong would have been found and the technicians wouldn't take the risk to authorize the plane to fly in that condition.

[alcorfr]

We still have ETOPS 180.
4 B773 grounded after inspection of all GE90-115B.
Problems with LP turbine 6th stage fins.
Spare engines available, will take roughly a week to change them all.

cheers

AF B777 F/O.

[pax2908]

Re: alcorfr

merci monsieur! Quite a busy time, was the inspection triggered by the latest FCO diversion? I take it that the root cause (sic) is not known yet, but there is confidence that after this inspection, no problems should arise in the short term? And out of curiosity, a long time ago derated thrust was not allowed for this engine at takeoff, to avoid some software problem and potential loss of thrust ... is this still in effect today?

[alcorfr]

pax2908,

yes the inspection was triggered by the FCO incident and when GE/AF maintenance found it was the same problem than in LED.
Problem is identified, engines beyond tolerance are removed, and i guess things will be thoroughly analysed by GE :)

The derated bug has been corrected a long while ago.

Cheers