PDA

View Full Version : JQ12 Diverts to Guam


Capt Chambo
7th Aug 2016, 09:59
Local Queensland paper reporting that JQ12 a B787, from Tokyo Narita to Coolangata has diverted to Guam after a precautionary engine shutdown.

The article...

Jetstar Boeing makes emergency landing on Pacific island, leaving 320 stranded (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/aviation/jetstar-boeing-makes-emergency-landing-on-pacific-island-leaving-320-stranded-20160807-gqn0f1.html)

Capn Bloggs
7th Aug 2016, 10:06
Leave her there.

Andy_S
7th Aug 2016, 10:23
Is this really newsworthy?

Kranky
7th Aug 2016, 10:59
Well it's in the news so it must be newsworthy.

Capt Fathom
7th Aug 2016, 11:04
Because it's in the news doesn't make it worthy.

Today's news is all about subtle (and not so subtle) advertising. Nothing to do with news!

Mike Tee
7th Aug 2016, 11:14
If the title of the post does not interest you. Don't read it, easy. Thank's for posting Capt. Chambo.

ACMS
7th Aug 2016, 11:25
I can think of worse places to be stuck........

Guam.......like Hawaii run by the Mexicans....

Kranky
7th Aug 2016, 11:30
Capt clearly you don't recognize sarcasm.
That said, if it fell out of the sky into the ocean, that would be newsworthy?
Something happened, it was reported. That's news.

Capt Fathom
7th Aug 2016, 12:28
Kranky clearly you don't recognise my humour :ok:

Capt Chambo
7th Aug 2016, 12:43
The reason I thought the item newsworthy was that it seems to me that there have been a significant number of inflight engine shutdowns, in the B787's relatively short service career.

There are a number of sources for this information, but the following website collates them nicely. (Note, I have no connection with the website, or it's owners, and I am sure that there are other sources available).

https://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/type/b788/boeing-787-8-dreamliner

By my count there have been more than 20 inflight shutdowns on the B788, most on the GEnx, most related to oil issues, either quantity, or pressure indications. The Rolls Royce Trent also figures of course, and there are a number of instances where no reason for the shutdown is given.

A number of the shutdowns have occurred when the aircraft was most likely in an ETOPS/EDTO sector, and of course the B788 is widely used to fly ETOPS/EDTO routes.

At some stage the number of these shutdowns must become statistically significant!

jack11111
7th Aug 2016, 20:17
ABC Australia News Radio reporting oil pressure issue as cause of the diversion.

tdracer
7th Aug 2016, 21:04
The reason I thought the item newsworthy was that it seems to me that there have been a significant number of inflight engine shutdowns, in the B787's relatively short service career.


Capt, you do realize there are over 400 787s currently in service, with something around 5 million total flight hours?

Kranky
7th Aug 2016, 22:00
Fathom, you got me.
I got your point about advertising in the news though. So blatant it's sickening.

Bula
8th Aug 2016, 05:06
Tdracer,

So with that deduction, that's 7 inflight shutdown I'm aware of...

400 Aircraft, 5 millions Hours.....

Inflight failure rate of 1 Failure every 700 000 ish hours....

That would be an ETOPS failure by the old methods. The thing never would have been certified.

p.j.m
8th Aug 2016, 06:16
Local Queensland paper reporting that JQ12 a B787, from Tokyo Narita to Coolangata has diverted to Guam after a precautionary engine shutdown.

The article...
Another day, another Jetstar delay or cancellation.

It might be newsworthy if they left and arrived on time!

DaveReidUK
8th Aug 2016, 06:28
So with that deduction, that's 7 inflight shutdown I'm aware of...

400 Aircraft, 5 millions Hours.....

Inflight failure rate of 1 Failure every 700 000 ish hours....

Some shaky maths there. You don't calculate IFSD rate by dividing failures by aircraft flight hours.

beardy
8th Aug 2016, 09:04
How is IFSD rate calculated?

tdracer
8th Aug 2016, 12:20
Tdracer,

So with that deduction, that's 7 inflight shutdown I'm aware of...

400 Aircraft, 5 millions Hours.....

Inflight failure rate of 1 Failure every 700 000 ish hours....

That would be an ETOPS failure by the old methods. The thing never would have been certified.
Huh?
First off, IFSD rate is number of shutdowns divided by the number of engine hours, not aircraft hours.
Baseline IFSD rate for 180 minute ETOPS is 0.02 (20/million hours.). Both GEnx and Trent 1000 are several times better than that.

Bula
9th Aug 2016, 04:27
Tdracer,

I'm just using your numbers. So that would be IFSD of 1 per 1.4 million hours on the 787 in general.

Anyway, there have been 19 shutdown inflight since 2013, which would make it worse.

So if 400 aircraft have done 5 million hours (10 million engine hours), that would be 1 IFSD every 530000 hours on round figures taking 747-8 hours into account, or am I missing something?

crippen
9th Aug 2016, 04:40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

:{

msbbarratt
9th Aug 2016, 05:18
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone ever compared the long over-water routes (eg Aus to South America) to the shipping lanes and how busy they are?

If in the unlikely scenario of a flight coming down in the wide expanse of the Pacific, one's chances of survival would be moderately enhanced if there was a steady stream of freighters sailing past to effect a speedy pickup.

However I'm guessing that if the aircraft's route requires a lengthy ETOPS rating then that naturally means that there's never a whole lot of anything (let alone a usable airstrip) down on the surface under some parts of the route.

1a sound asleep
9th Aug 2016, 05:54
VH-VKK is still stuck in Guam so it must really really be busted very good :8

Chris2303
9th Aug 2016, 07:00
Jetstar Dreamliner forced to land in Guam has had two new engines in less than a year | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3730570/Jetstar-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-forced-land-Guam-two-new-engines-year.html)

DaveReidUK
9th Aug 2016, 08:13
Jetstar Dreamliner forced to land in Guam has had two new engines in less than a year | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3730570/Jetstar-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-forced-land-Guam-two-new-engines-year.html)

Not necessarily of any significance. Could be a complete coincidence.

tdracer
9th Aug 2016, 14:09
Tdracer,

I'm just using your numbers. So that would be IFSD of 1 per 1.4 million hours on the 787 in general.

Anyway, there have been 19 shutdown inflight since 2013, which would make it worse.

So if 400 aircraft have done 5 million hours (10 million engine hours), that would be 1 IFSD every 530000 hours on round figures taking 747-8 hours into account, or am I missing something?
Bula, you're missing the point. The IFSD requirement for 180 minute ETOPS is .02/1000 hrs. - or 20 shutdowns per million hours. To be clear, that means, on the average, one shutdown every 50,000 hours. The 787 fleet is roughly 10 times better than that requirement.. It's actually on a par with "mature" engine fleets such as the CF6-80C2, GE90, PW4000, and pre-1000 Trent.
So what's your beef? If you feel the 787 shutdown rate is a problem, then you have the same issue with the 737, 757, 767, 777, A320, A330, and any other twin engine aircraft that flies ETOPS...:confused:
BTW, the GEnx-2B on the 747-8 are book kept separately - that would be another ~5 million engine hours - with a similarly low shutdown rate (the gearbox problem that has caused several shutdowns on the GEnx-1B is unique to the -1B).

er340790
9th Aug 2016, 14:32
Methinks the Copy Editor got a little over-excited there. :rolleyes:

Perhaps he was imagining pax already clubbing each other in a Lord of the Flies manner and resorting to Cannibalism(?) :}

This is C21. I'm pretty sure they'll all be shuttled to air-conditioned hotels, fed, watered and flown on to their destination shortly...

Still, probably as close to a Survival Story as most people will ever get these days.

notapilot15
9th Aug 2016, 14:36
@tdracer

There is no doubt you are more intimate with details and have appropriate stats handy to prove it.

But somehow there is trust deficit with B787 program. Numbers look right on the paper, but there is an uneasy feeling.

OldLurker
9th Aug 2016, 14:47
This is C21. I'm pretty sure they'll all be shuttled to air-conditioned hotels, fed, watered and flown on to their destination shortly...Hah! (You were joking, weren't you?)

Gold Coast bound Jetstar flight grounded in Guam for 24 hours (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/gold-coast-bound-jetstar-flight-grounded-in-guam-for-24-hours-on-route-from-guam/news-story/5af13079bf3e207961dbb286a39fe5d5)
... 40 rooms were available in Guam for 290 to 300 people ... the students spent the night in the airport and were given a blanket ...

DaveReidUK
9th Aug 2016, 15:30
But somehow there is trust deficit with B787 program. Numbers look right on the paper, but there is an uneasy feeling.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. :O

oldchina
9th Aug 2016, 16:03
"somehow there is trust deficit with B787 program"

Certainly a thrust deficit from time to time ...

notapilot15
9th Aug 2016, 16:23
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. :O
If you want to call custom tailored paid stats as facts.

tdracer
9th Aug 2016, 17:16
If you want to call custom tailored paid stats as facts. There are industry standards for keeping track of things like IFSDs, LOTC (Loss of Thrust Control), Delays and Cancellations, RTO, etc. The 787 is using the exact same standards as every other aircraft/engine out there. Nothing is custom tailored.
The 787 has certainly had it's problems - especially the Li battery problem. But mass media, incompetent reporting, and BS stories such as the above liked Daily Fail are the rule and are feeding a false narrative that the 787 is unsafe. Similar stories have suggested that "all" Boeing did about the battery was put it in a steel box, ignoring that the entire system was redesigned, further feeding the narrative. Good news doesn't sell...
Threads such as this simply feed this false narrative, with irrational statements such as one shutdown every 700,000 hours is somehow unsafe (again, if that's the case, all twin engine aircraft are unsafe). The 787 has had it's issues, but the engine IFSD rate is not one of them.
Part of the problem is most people still think of the 787 as a very small fleet with few hours - not realizing that there are already over 400 in service less than 5 years after EIS. By comparison it took ~8 years for the 777,~10 years for 767 and 757 models, and ~15 years for the DC-10 to reach 400 in-service aircraft. The L1011, MD-11, and A310 never even made 400 units.

Ask yourself, if this had been a 767 or an A330, would the OP even bothered to make the post?

LeeJoyce
10th Aug 2016, 01:13
They are sending a few blokes over there with some spanners, it's not leaving till they've put a new donk on it

172driver
10th Aug 2016, 05:33
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone ever compared the long over-water routes (eg Aus to South America) to the shipping lanes and how busy they are?

If in the unlikely scenario of a flight coming down in the wide expanse of the Pacific, one's chances of survival would be moderately enhanced if there was a steady stream of freighters sailing past to effect a speedy pickup.

However I'm guessing that if the aircraft's route requires a lengthy ETOPS rating then that naturally means that there's never a whole lot of anything (let alone a usable airstrip) down on the surface under some parts of the route.

You are correct. The map you are looking for is here. (http://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/gam/images/large/shipping_laness.png) As you correctly assume, the really, really long ETOPS routes run across stretches of ocean that are largely devoid of shipping.

In any case, having traversed the Southern Ocean in a ship a couple of times, let me tell you, it doesn't matter. Forget about any successful ditching in these waters, ain't gonna happen. This is not the Med....

notapilot15
10th Aug 2016, 12:45
The 787 has certainly had it's problems
...
Part of the problem is most people still think of the 787 as a very small fleet with few hours - not realizing that there are already over 400 in service less than 5 years after EIS. By comparison it took ~8 years for the 777,~10 years for 767 and 757 models, and ~15 years for the DC-10 to reach 400 in-service aircraft. The L1011, MD-11, and A310 never even made 400 units.

Ask yourself, if this had been a 767 or an A330, would the OP even bothered to make the post?
Are you saying churning out more lemons faster is a great achievement. Because B777 and B737NG were rock solid airlines jumped on B787. When it noticed there are issues, it should have slowed down production.

Now it became so bad, only few airlines can deal with first 200 copies.

B787 was sold as P2P aircraft, but parts depots were located only 3-5 locations in the world, assuming they have the part in stock.

When it noticed lot of components are prematurely failing, they should have stocked more spares. But they ramped up production. Why?

Narita is a major B787 hub, and in this day and age of asset management world, Jetstar need not send a team and parts from Australia. Because B787 parts take time to show up anyway, airlines send their own teams to save money. This should have been fixed in hours.

Even a G650 gone tech at a remote airport spends less time on ground than a commercial B787.

DaveReidUK
10th Aug 2016, 15:23
Are you saying churning out more lemons faster is a great achievement. Because B777 and B737NG were rock solid airlines jumped on B787. When it noticed there are issues, it should have slowed down production.

Now it became so bad, only few airlines can deal with first 200 copies.

B787 was sold as P2P aircraft, but parts depots were located only 3-5 locations in the world, assuming they have the part in stock.

When it noticed lot of components are prematurely failing, they should have stocked more spares. But they ramped up production. Why?

Narita is a major B787 hub, and in this day and age of asset management world, Jetstar need not send a team and parts from Australia. Because B787 parts take time to show up anyway, airlines send their own teams to save money. This should have been fixed in hours.

Even a G650 gone tech at a remote airport spends less time on ground than a commercial B787.

Gosh, it's not often you find such expertise in airline operations, aircraft manufacturing and product support, all in the same post.

Cool Guys
10th Aug 2016, 15:26
tdracer,


Great posts!! Full of interesting facts!

Capt Chambo
11th Aug 2016, 02:03
The "Australian" newspaper of the 10th August also has an article about the incident.

According to their report the engine that was shutdown was only 3 months old.

The article is hidden behind a paywall unfortunately, but if anyone else has access to it they may be able to cut & pate the article.

Lonewolf_50
11th Aug 2016, 03:12
Capt Chambo:
Is this, per your observation that "it was the engine ..." a matter of
the engine itself,
the maintenance program
or the systems interface between the rest of the aircraft systems and the engine systems/sub-systems?

p.j.m
13th Aug 2016, 01:35
The "Australian" newspaper of the 10th August also has an article about the incident.

According to their report the engine that was shutdown was only 3 months old.

The article is hidden behind a paywall unfortunately, but if anyone else has access to it they may be able to cut & pate the article.
https://i.imgur.com/3SMVA9C.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DXAgg6Q.jpg

Capn Bloggs
13th Aug 2016, 01:41
How did they get the replacement engine to Guam?

Lonewolf_50
13th Aug 2016, 01:58
Some of our friends on the Freight Dogs forum may be able to explain how that happened. :)

LeeJoyce
13th Aug 2016, 06:44
Diversion to Guam
Our flight from Narita to the Gold Coast (JQ12) was diverted on Sunday after the aircraft displayed an indicator message relating to oil pressure. The 787 landed safely in Guam (the nearest airport), and remains there while it’s inspected by our engineers. We arranged an alternative aircraft for our customers to continue their journey, and they arrived in the Gold Coast on Monday morning. Our Engineering team are currently working with engine manufacturer GE to replace the engine and understand what occurred. We expect the aircraft will be back in service by next week. Thank you to all involved.

For the avgeeks
Our Social Wrap provides insight in to what our customers say about us on social media. This week, it’s the avgeeks, plane spotters and aviation community that lit up social channels with the very rare departure of an Antonov An-124 aircraft from Melbourne Airport, which was taking a GEnx engine to Guam for our 787 (see story above). Our team also shared their photos of the exciting event on Yammer–see them here and here (thank you Stephen Capron).

Minosavy Masta
17th Aug 2016, 00:57
Regarding the Etops question, I was under the impression that Etops was not simply a Manufacturer/ Airframe concern,but the Individual Operator had to demonstrate a satisfactory period of operating a particular Engine/ Airframe combination.

I recall when QF first started operating the A330 it was not Etops approved until those parameters had been satisfied...accordingly the A330 remained a domestic vehicle for a considerable period prior to being utilised Internationally. This despite the fact that the Engines on the A330 were Identical with those on the 767 which was happily plying the skies with 180 min Etops approval .

One can but wonder how this affects Jet* operation of the Dreamliner in these circumstances .

tdracer
17th Aug 2016, 18:42
One can but wonder how this affects Jet* operation of the Dreamliner in these circumstances .
The IFSD rate for ETOPS is tracked at both the fleet level and the operator level - the operator level stuff being done by the local regulatory authority. Fleet level is pretty strict (although I recall a case where the engine manufacture petitioned to have one operator excluded from the fleet rate because the operator wasn't properly maintaining their engines and pretty much everyone who was paying attention knew it). Operator level stuff is more flexible - someone with a small fleet could go over the ETOPS limit due to a single fluke shutdown - often it includes agreements that if there is an IFSD the operator will demonstrate they've taken corrective action to insure they don't have another (which can get tricky if you can't figure out what caused the shutdown, which occasionally happens).
In addition, the 787 (also the A350) were certified for "early ETOPS" - basically more testing is done during the certification phase to demonstrate the ETOPS capability at EIS. This was originally done for the 777 (I was involved at the time, and we literally had to invent it as we went). Early ETOPS simplifies the ETOPS approval process for the individual operators, although they still need to present a plan acceptable to the local authorities before they can begin ETOPS operations.


BTW, the A330 engines were NOT identical to the 767 - they were higher thrust derivatives of the 767 engines.

MrSnuggles
17th Aug 2016, 19:27
Has anyone kept track of the problems Norwegian has had with their 787 fleet?

Many late or cancelled flights due to technical stuff. No inflight engine shutdowns yet - have they been lucky so far?

msbbarratt
17th Aug 2016, 22:44
You are correct. The map you are looking for is here. (http://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/gam/images/large/shipping_laness.png) As you correctly assume, the really, really long ETOPS routes run across stretches of ocean that are largely devoid of shipping.

In any case, having traversed the Southern Ocean in a ship a couple of times, let me tell you, it doesn't matter. Forget about any successful ditching in these waters, ain't gonna happen. This is not the Med....

172driver, it's certainly pretty lonely down there. The southern oceans are certainly unpleasant, but the Med ain't so friendly either when it wants to get rough.

Judging by the number of times an aircraft operated properly under today's ETOPS regulations has ditched in the ogin due to engine failure (AFAIK, none), one would certainly say that the regulations work as intended.

SeenItAll
18th Aug 2016, 16:01
Article says 320 stranded and the plane was a 787-8. Pardon me asking, but is Jetstar (which I know is a high density airline) really able to fit that many on this plane? If so, they are giving AC Rouge a run for their money on sardine service.

DaveReidUK
18th Aug 2016, 17:12
Article says 320 stranded and the plane was a 787-8. Pardon me asking, but is Jetstar (which I know is a high density airline) really able to fit that many on this plane? If so, they are giving AC Rouge a run for their money on sardine service.

21C+314Y:

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetstar/Jetstar_Boeing_787-8.php

notapilot15
18th Aug 2016, 19:34
Has anyone kept track of the problems Norwegian has had with their 787 fleet?

Many late or cancelled flights due to technical stuff. No inflight engine shutdowns yet - have they been lucky so far?
Norwegian issues were mostly related to fuel pumps.

UA had a rash of incidents, mostly electrical if I remember correctly.

ANA has mostly engine management system and brake system issues. ANA stopped publishing details.

AI has been vocal from beginning, but was discounted as internal mx issues, mainly software, spoiler actuators and windshield cracks. There are unconfirmed rumors VT-ANI wingbox was reworked. AI also has very early revisions of GEnX, one frame with both faulty engines, lot went through rework, but GE has been very proactive.

BA had some of the weirdest issues. One IFSD.

Brunei had problems with both engines.

Keep in mind, none of these caused any flight safety issues. It is mostly heartburn and revenue loss for airlines.

Even though battery got most attention, I think software in general and spoiler actuator system are still the culprits. By the time it lands there are so many messages, line mx has to make sure is it a false warning (or) bad sensor (or) bad component and remediate.

Rest of the issues kind of settled.

SeenItAll
18th Aug 2016, 19:59
21C+314Y:

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetstar/Jetstar_Boeing_787-8.php
Boy, that really is a slave ship. I'll never complain about my seating on United again.

stallfail
18th Aug 2016, 20:57
Thank you tdracer, contributions like your's make me enjoying pprune again ��

evansb
18th Aug 2016, 21:11
I would hazard to guess that all 320 passengers consider the diversion as news.

Minosavy Masta
19th Aug 2016, 13:45
Thanks Tdracer. Appreciate the input. 🤓

Capt Chambo
21st Aug 2016, 12:13
The Australian news papers are reporting that the cause of the engine shut down, and subsequent diversion, was due to an issue related to a transfer gearbox.

This is a link to the relevant article.

Jetstar: Dreamliner planes are flying with a known engine problem (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/jetstars-787-dreamliners-flying-with-risky-engine-problem/news-story/89b91a77c25f0d5433d62f9dfddf21c0)

Una Due Tfc
22nd Aug 2016, 21:31
Even a G650 gone tech at a remote airport spends less time on ground than a commercial B787.

Seeing as you need a bloody Antonov or 747F to get a new donk to a stricken 787 as opposed to pretty much any cargo jet in existence for a gulfstream, that's not a great comparison.

Great posts as always tdracer, pleasure to read. Out of interest, can a 777F take a Trent 1000/GEnx or are you stuck with the 4 holers mentioned above?

tdracer
22nd Aug 2016, 23:31
Out of interest, can a 777F take a Trent 1000/GEnx or are you stuck with the 4 holers mentioned above?
A GEnx will fit in a 777F, but I think some disassembly may be necessary first. The GEnx is designed so the fan module can be easily removed (both to facilitate shipping and for repair/refurb). The fan on the GEnx-1B is actually slightly larger in diameter than the PW4000/112" so getting an intact engine through the 120" tall 777F cargo door would be tough.
I'm not as familiar with the Trent 1000 so I can't really comment.

Ex Douglas Driver
23rd Aug 2016, 00:21
Here's some shipping info on the Trent XWB engine (from VRR, the pallet manufacturer):

The engine stand that the Trent 1000 engine is shipped on is based on a 196x125 inch pallet. This is a non-standard size in the aviation cargo industry, but it can still be loaded onto some types of airplane. In this case, itís often a B747 or B777 freighter aircraft. The engine, including the transport frame, just fits through the door of these planes, leaving us with only 1 inch of headroom to construct a solid and rigid pallet.

http://vrr-aviation.com/media/1624/pze_pallet-rolls-royce-5.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&quality=100&height=420&rnd=130754028170000000

http://vrr-aviation.com/media/1625/pze_pallet-rolls-royce-6.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&quality=100&height=420&rnd=130754028180000000

fwiw The A350 inlet cowl only has 3 inches clearance when going through a B744F nose door.

notapilot15
23rd Aug 2016, 01:47
Seeing as you need a bloody Antonov or 747F to get a new donk to a stricken 787 as opposed to pretty much any cargo jet in existence for a gulfstream, that's not a great comparison.

B787 was advertised as a low CASM P2P medium capacity long range aircraft to serve thin long routes. But neither its supply chain nor support network thought ahead. So B should warn airlines where they can take this crown jewel. Lufthansa restricted A320NEO ops to major Lufthansa Teknik centers until kinks are resolved.

Relief B744s were also able to ferry a spare engine.
Business Jet manufacturers are able to serve customers.
Even Twin Otters to South Pole are better prepared.

So lot of airlines purchased without reading the fine print that they may need stock 6 different windshields(multiple quantities) and a premium logistics contract with Volga-Dnepr or some other IL-76 operator at the least, or it will take 15 days for UTC to weave and bake a reverse thruster.