SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit [Archive]

Chris Scott

2nd Feb 2017, 09:29

Quote:
"Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?"

What planet do you live on? Try looking at a map. :ugh:

Every long-haul crew's nightmare, particularly on a twin. The relief after the successful landing would have been palpable. But then the music starts...

[EDIT]
On reflection, the suggested extra one hour extra to YYR (Goose Bay), compared to YFB (Iqaluit), was not as far adrift as I first thought. :O The extra 650 nm or so would perhaps have taken about 90 mins at single-engine cruise speed? Unacceptable in view of the availability of YFB, however.

billysmart

2nd Feb 2017, 09:51

Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?

QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 09:55

Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?

Errr, and the rest.......

In any event what Chris said;

Looking at the map if Iqaluit was acceptable (weather, etc) then anyone deciding to press on elsewhere, ( e.g. Goose) in a twin, with one shut down, for another x hours would probably be best advised to think about looking for another job this morning.

ATC Watcher

2nd Feb 2017, 10:03

Well done . Iqaluit is not easy , the terminal cannot handle that much pax, but everyone is safe. the rest is only paperwork...and good training for the mechanics to change an engine by - 30 degr... No hangar that can accept a 777 in Iqaluit last time I was there...

As to the armchairs critics here : why Iqaluit? : closest airport, period. Imagine if they got into trouble after having overflown it and decided to go somewhere " more comfortable" .

billysmart

2nd Feb 2017, 10:09

Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?

QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.

Chris Scott

2nd Feb 2017, 10:22

wiggy,

It's 30 years since I operated that route, and I was no expert then. Looking at my world globe, Iqaluit (formerly Frobisher Bay) looks easily the strongest candidate from the point they diverted.

Half-decent weather for the time of year, I guess:
CYFB 011900Z 32006KT 4SM -SN SCT034 BKN055 M21/M24 A2964 RMK SN3SC1SC3 SLP042
CYFB 011800Z 31004KT 5SM -SN SCT035 BKN051 M21/M25 A2962 RMK SN2SC2SC3 CIG RAG SLP037
CYFB 011730Z 32004KT 5SM -SN SCT034 BKN050 BKN100 M21/M25 A2961 RMK SN2SC2SC2AC1 SLP033
CYFB 011700Z 32004KT 8SM -SN SCT042 BKN100 BKN140 M22/M25 A2961 RMK SN1SC3AC2AC1 SLP033

Having originally departed Zurich at 1230Z, I'm assuming it would have landed around 1800Z (1300L)?

There seems to be an ILS on Rwy 34, which is about 2600 metres (8600 ft) long.

golfyankeesierra

2nd Feb 2017, 10:26

land at next available airport or wording to that effect
In our handbooks, it actually is:
"Plan to land at nearest SUITABLE airport", slight difference..
Without knowing the details like type of failure, weather and runway conditions of both YFB and YYR, company SOPS, it is hard for to make an assessment..
Especially runway condition is interesting, thought that callout time in YFB in winter is significally longer then in summer..

golfyankeesierra

2nd Feb 2017, 10:38

And now that I think of it, with their historical background, I really understand a Swiss crew's mindset not to bypass an usable airport on their way to one slightly better but an hour further...

Bearcat

2nd Feb 2017, 10:38

QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.
I think the word you are looking for is "suitable"

BluSdUp

2nd Feb 2017, 11:00

Gratulations to the Crew on job well done.
I think Swiss possibly had a bit more than a engine flame out or a precautionary shut down.
They found out the hard way what happens when you try to solve a problem that is to fare gone.

Quite shure the cl said Land at the nearest suitable airport.
For those of you allergic to snow, leave this to to us that love it.

I would fly into this place any time compared to the desert were the numbers are rigged to support unsustainable aircraft export and illogic hubbing.
Never mind.

The fact that we now see the other side of ETOPS, ie having to put down in a community were you dobbel the population at touchdown.
And the suits at HQ are outoff ideas .
So WHAT .
It was maybe not the perfect diversion, but it was the safest if time was critical.
2600meters rwy at -22c if cowered with spots of hard snow still gives good breaking action.

Anyway looking forward to see the initial report.

billysmart

2nd Feb 2017, 11:04

I didnt think i needed to write suitable as that should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60.

The "suitable" airports are marked on the flight plan by flight ops. But hey what do I know ;)

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 11:07

I think the danger is if availability of "company support" starts skewing the decision making process in an emergency such as this, though I'd agree it would be in the decision making process if it was "50/50" between two airfields .

For the sake of this discussion looking at the Metars and knowing what Iqaluit has available it would be hard to see it as being anything other than the "nearest suitable".

Jwscud

2nd Feb 2017, 11:41

I would expect crews in that part of the world will already know where they are going before the EICAS squawks into life. Routing to SEA/SFO/LAX from Europe leaves you spending a lot of time over unforgiving terrain with few options available.

I sympathise greatly wish the crew having sat there looking at the weather and plates at the likes of Yellowknife and Iqualuit and offering a quiet prayer to messrs RR or GE as we approach the edges of those nice ETOPS circles.

AN2 Driver

2nd Feb 2017, 12:28

And the suits at HQ are outoff ideas .

Quite a statement seeing that within a very reasonable time under the circumstances they had an airplane and crew up there to take the pax to JFK, from where they could be distributed onto other flights. I think this was handled very professionally by the company.

With a Twin bypassing a suitable airport with one fan shut down is simply not done.

India Charlie

2nd Feb 2017, 12:35

LX7003 (A333) from YFB has just landed at JFK.

Hotel Tango

2nd Feb 2017, 13:45

From the article in French I understand that this was an "automatic" engine shut down. Is that correct? If so I'd be worried that the other "automatically" shut down too. Consequently, a rapid diversion to the nearest suitable was a no brainer. Excellent PROFESSIONAL job done by the crew!

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 13:58

HT

Sound unlikely doesn't it - be interesting to see what exactly happened.

I wonder if it's a clunky way of saying basically the engine simply failed!!!

OTOH some pax do seem very unhappy at the idea we can turn anything on or off without HALs permission, and would probably be happier if they were told HAL did the whole job....

"Open the pod bay doors HAL............."

fleigle

2nd Feb 2017, 14:13

I wonder what the braking was like?, snow covered surface, assymetric reverse, obviously they made it ok.
Job well done.

Evening Star

2nd Feb 2017, 14:43

Here's a video of the all-snow landscape landing:
https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/8355659-atterrissage-d-urgence-au-canada-d-un-vol-swiss-zurich-los-angeles-.html

Google Translate provides an interesting perspective:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48420878/Swiss.jpg

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 14:45

That'll get the Greens protesting........:E

alainthailande

2nd Feb 2017, 15:35

Native French speaker here.
Best translation I can come up with is "resulted in the automatic shutdown of the left engine, as intended / as per design of the automation"
Just a pax here, but that sure sounds like a case where avionics decide that keeping that engine running is a major threat and shut it down without human intervention. Looking forward to reading input from people who know whether that's even possible...

DaveReidUK

2nd Feb 2017, 15:37

That'll get the Greens protesting........

Well everybody else moans about Google Translate, why shouldn't they ? :O

But Newton would be OK with it ...

billysmart

2nd Feb 2017, 16:07

I didnt think i needed to write suitable as that should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60.

The "suitable" airports are marked on the flight plan by flight ops. But hey what do I know ;)

The actual wording in the QRH for this instance is "LAND ASAP" nothing more nothing less

BluSdUp

2nd Feb 2017, 16:09

AN2 Driver
I may have insinuated that Swiss HQ do not know what they are doing.
That is not the case. and this is why I would love to fly with them any time.

Some other LH companies are of my list as pax.
Land ASAP or nearest suitable means just that.
Ops have no say in that , whatsoever the Commander has , hence Commander.
I think Fly Dubai proved that with a perfectly working AC with at least 4 ACARS and 3 satphone massages to " help " the commander.

Just had a timecritical Non Normal event on approach with CAVOK and standard fuel plus 15 mins.
22 min of cl and non standard brief and performance.
No time for dicking around with asking HQ what they wanted.
Could have gone to a maint base nearby. Did not: KISS.
Landed with fuel to spare for a second approach AND diversion fuel to said maint base.
If your enroute alternates or emg airports are called Frobisher Bay , Churchill , Alert , Cambridge Bay, Søndrestrøm Fjord , Narsasuak , Thule ,or Longyear Byen etc etc You are interested in the following: Is it open , weather and performance. Head for it,

By the way , a-symmetric thrust cant possibly be an issue with an aircraft as long and with such a rudder , and a fullflap N-1 landing . Vref ca 135???
Regards Cpt B

RatherBeFlying

2nd Feb 2017, 16:16

They won't be the first to erect a tent over the engine and bring in several heaters.

The locals have the skills to do the job with snow blocks;)

BluSdUp

2nd Feb 2017, 18:16

Tent for the Trent!
Building a set of stairs high enough for the debarkation was nr one exercise it looked like from the video.
Shure love those airstairs in the 737 800.
Anyway, i am shure the locals have a plan to cover that engine and enough heaters for a good sauna by now.
Keep an open mind , and listen to the locals. Not the first engine changed up there. Possibly the biggest, mind u !
Can anyone give us some progress reports and pictures !?
They will have have it ticking in no time.

DaveReidUK

2nd Feb 2017, 19:10

Tent for the Trent!

Not on a -300ER.

I think you mean a teepee for a GE. :O

Capt Ecureuil

2nd Feb 2017, 19:15

And YFB if perfectly suitable?.... not sure what any other option would be if you wanted to keep your job.

PersonFromPorlock

2nd Feb 2017, 19:25

The fact that we now see the other side of ETOPS, ie having to put down in a community were you dobbel the population at touchdown.Actual population is ~6600. And it's on the Baffin Riviera! :p

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 20:23

but that sure sounds like a case where avionics decide that keeping that engine running is a major threat and shut it down without human intervention. Looking forward to reading input from people who know whether that's even possible...

No idea about the type/engine in question here, but for example on a twin you'd need to be darned sure your automation ensured you didn't shut down a sick but running engine/thrust producing engine (e.g. due to low or zero oil pressure) without checking the state of the other engine first.

SMT Member

2nd Feb 2017, 20:25

I'm baffled anyone would read anything into a news article, e.g. 'automatic shutdown'. It's anyones guess where 'the news' get their facts from, but anyone who has inside knowledge on anything they report on, will tell you that most of the time they get it dead wrong.

Now, to my knowledge there is no such thing as 'automatic shut-down' of main engines on any airliner. For the APU, yes, but for the big noisy things hanging off the wings, there are only 3 ways of getting them to shut down: Run out of fuel, suffer catastrophic failure or command by the crew.

Twiglet1

2nd Feb 2017, 20:28

I'm sure the An124 boys are readying for a nice charter there with an replacement engine :ok:

tdracer

2nd Feb 2017, 20:32

I've been out of the loop for a while, but do these modern wonder-jets have engines that shut-down automatically? Sounds scary to me; I'm an old Luddite who would like to be able to make my own decision about engines.
There is only one scenario where we let the FADEC unilaterally shutdown the engine on Boeing aircraft: Uncontrollable High Thrust (UHT) while on the ground (TCMA). It's only active while on the ground (both radio altimeter and weight on wheels), if an engine goes to (or remains at) high power with the throttle at idle, the FADEC will shut it down.
This was done to address a specific FAA concern that UHT on the ground was catastrophic.
In flight, the FADEC will always do it's best to keep the thing running.

Edit: On further reflection, there is another scenario - overspeed (i.e. rotor speed over redline) - if the high rotor speed exceeds redline by a preset value, a separate circuit in the engine control will cut the fuel to protect the structural integrity of the engine. However this isn't applicable to the GE90 on the 777-300ER (it has a mechanical fly-ball governor that will hold N2 at redline).

wiggy

2nd Feb 2017, 20:37

In flight, the FADEC will always do it's best to keep the thing running.

Sounds like a good idea to me....

guadaMB

2nd Feb 2017, 21:26

AFAIK all that "automatic shut-off" stuff is after a media report/article.
Did any authorized technical statement (Swiss, Boeing) give any clue/info about this subject?
:confused:

DaveReidUK

2nd Feb 2017, 21:32

AFAIK all that "automatic shut-off" stuff is after a media report/article

It comes from a statement from the airline.

Did any authorized technical statement (Swiss, Boeing) give any clue/info about this subject?See above (and post #1).

Sailvi767

2nd Feb 2017, 21:36

Delta recently had a 767 divert to Cold Bay Alaska. A new engine was flown in by C130. The bigger problem they had was Cold Bay did not have enough deice capability for a 767. They had to hire the big Russian airlifter to fly two deice trucks and a tanker in for the deice. Only other option was wait for spring!

sunny11410

2nd Feb 2017, 22:19

Short trip report from somebody onboard:
trip report (http://www.vielfliegertreff.de/reiseberichte/104899-mit-swiss-die-usa-via-iqaluit-yfb-wegen-sicherheitslandung-nach-triebwerksausfall.html)
Obviously very well handled by the crew & SWISS.

tdracer

2nd Feb 2017, 22:33

Chris Scott

2nd Feb 2017, 22:57

Presumably RR and its shareholders will be relieved that it wasn't a Trent that quit this time. They've had enough problems (non-mechanical) this year already.

Sailvi767

2nd Feb 2017, 23:36

porterhouse

2nd Feb 2017, 23:53

I thought so too. Imagine changing engines in those conditions! Wonder if Air Canada has any support there.
Such aircraft could be retrieved and brought to another airport by company's test pilot. Yes, they can obtain a ferry permit and fly it out on a single engine (sufficiently empty of course). It is up to the airline how they want to handle it. I know United had test pilots for jobs like that - they would fly a crippled airliner sometimes across the globe.

Airbubba

3rd Feb 2017, 00:14

Such aircraft could be retrieved and brought to another airport by company's test pilot. Yes, they can obtain a ferry permit and fly it out on a single engine (sufficiently empty of course). It is up to the airline how they want to handle it. I know United had test pilots for jobs like that - they would fly a crippled airliner sometimes across the globe.

Single engine ferry of an ETOPS twin? :eek: That's a new one on me. Can you cite an example of when this was done? :confused:

tdracer

3rd Feb 2017, 00:34

lomapaseo

3rd Feb 2017, 00:59

I'm with Airbubba. There is an approved procedure to do engine out, non-revenue ferry of the 747 - i.e. 3 engine ferry (the procedure is in the AFM) - but I've never heard of anything equivalent for the 777 (or any commercial twin).

If it's non-revenue and the crew agrees why can't you get approval?

Don't they do test flights with an engine out on takeoff?

tdracer

3rd Feb 2017, 01:20

If it's non-revenue and the crew agrees why can't you get approval?

Don't they do test flights with an engine out on takeoff?

They do flight tests where they do a fuel cut at V1, but I've never heard of a test where they did a takeoff on a single engine from brake release. And there are special requirements for such tests - including doing it out of some place like Edwards where if things go badly they're not apt to land on someone... (although to be fair, there's not much around Iqaluit to hit if it does go wrong)
The FAA tends to frown on such things - even for flight testing or non-revenue.

Airbubba

3rd Feb 2017, 01:27

Don't they do test flights with an engine out on takeoff?

I'm not rightly sure they start the takeoff roll with an engine shutdown in a Boeing. ;)

Hank Beaird did demo this questionable maneuver in 1964 with a fed onboard however. It was in N801L, the first of two Learjet prototypes. Unfortunately, they had left the spoilers up after the previous landing and balled the plane up in a field off the end of the runway at ICT. Hank and the fed were unhurt but Lear had to exhibit the second prototype at the upcoming Reading, PA airshow without a finished interior.

er340790

3rd Feb 2017, 02:04

As an aside, if anyone would like to know just how an engine change used to be done in the high Arctic, I strongly recommend a read of 'Bent Props & Blow Pots' by Rex Terpening.

Those guys were made of something different to all of us.

stilton

3rd Feb 2017, 03:54

Single engine ferry permit eh ?

That's one i'd like to see !

India Charlie

3rd Feb 2017, 04:31

Aviation Herald also reporting "automatic shutdown" of engine.

Incident: Swiss B773 near Iqaluit on Feb 1st 2017, engine automatically shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a453674)

Still no word about how they're planning to get HB-JND out of Iqaluit, but I'm scanning FR24 for any movement.

Passenger 389

3rd Feb 2017, 04:54

Question:

Why must the United States FAA authorize a non-revenue ferry flight (for repairs), of a plane presently in the Canadian arctic, that is owned and operated by a Swiss airline, so long as that flight isn't to or over US territory?

Does the FAA have that power simply because the plane or key parts were made by a US company?

Or because the FAA certified the "type"?

Or ????

tdracer

3rd Feb 2017, 05:55

Technically, they wouldn't need FAA approval, but they would need CAA (and probably EASA) approval. If it was something that had been previously approved by the FAA (such as the 747 3 engine ferry) getting such approval would be trivial. But if it's something that's not been previously approved, the local authorities will want to know why, and what could go wrong (which in the case of a single engine ferry is painfully obvious).

ExXB

3rd Feb 2017, 06:19

A Swiss International Air Lines Boeing 777 300 (SWR40) from Zurich, Switzerland (LSZH) to Los Angeles, CA (KLAX) declared a PAN PAN due to engine failure at 1825Z. The aircraft descended to FL220 and diverted to Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) on single engine. SWR40 requested emergency services at destination. The aircraft landed safely without incident at 2003Z. No impact to operations.

(Cont'd from abv):
A Swiss International Air Lines Boeing 777 300 (HB-JND/ SWR40) from Zurich, Switzerland (LSZH) to Los Angeles, CA (KLAX) (diverted to Iqaluit, NU, see # 2017C0405) got stuck in the turn around bay at the Threshold of 16. The runway was NOTAMed closed until the aircraft was towed clear at 2110Z. The closure resulted in a First Air Bae RJ85 (C-FLRJ/ FAB955) from Yellowknife, NT (CYZF) to Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) holding until able to land at 2121Z and a Canadian North Boeing 737-300 (C-GZCN/ MPE436) from Ottawa, ON (CYOW) to Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) diverting to Kuujjuaq, QC

glofish

3rd Feb 2017, 06:23

I had a tower shaft failure on a GE. With no drive to the accessory section engine quits asap!

There is a distinct difference between a shutdown and a failure.

Shutdown is performed on an engine that is basically still performing, while some indications issue a caution or warning. It is a precaution, long or very short term.

A failure has affected an engine and as a consequence it will no longer function, at least not for long or not with the desired performance.

DaveReidUK

3rd Feb 2017, 06:27

It is up to the airline how they want to handle it. I know United had test pilots for jobs like that - they would fly a crippled airliner sometimes across the globe.

I'm sure they did - when they flew DC-6s, DC-7s, DC-8s, Viscounts, B720s, etc.

Spot the difference. :ugh:

Herod

3rd Feb 2017, 07:20

Again I say I've been out of it a long time, but I did several 3-engine ferries on 4-engine aircraft, but I've never heard of a single-engine ferry on a twin. I'd not be the person to do it.

casablanca

3rd Feb 2017, 07:45

I heard of another situation recently where a crew had an inflight shutdown......after talking with ops control they were persuaded to overfly a perfectly acceptable airport and return to home base, which was much more convenient for everyone involved......except the pilots who are most likely going to be fired. Granted this is still at the rumor level but sounds about right.
Common to do ferry flights on all 4 engine and 3 engine ac like MD11 and Tristar. Have never heard of of a twin ever doing this.....all though in theory if runway was 8km long it is possible but would never be approved by Faa / Easa

Less Hair

3rd Feb 2017, 08:14

Is there any info what sort of issue the engine had?

EK380

3rd Feb 2017, 08:38

ONE ENGINE FERRY FLIGHT on a B777?

Ever heard of VMC G and VMC A ? You won't need a 8km runway, as you will be out of it after 200m!

Evanelpus

3rd Feb 2017, 08:49

And now that I think of it, with their historical background, I really understand a Swiss crew's mindset not to bypass an usable airport on their way to one slightly better but an hour further...

Swissair 111 springs to my mind. Maybe there is a mindset now within Swiss to get the hell down as soon as possible?

Chris Scott

3rd Feb 2017, 08:50

Report quoted by ExXB:
"A Swiss International Air Lines Boeing 777 300 (HB-JND/ SWR40) from Zurich, Switzerland (LSZH) to Los Angeles, CA (KLAX) (diverted to Iqaluit, NU, see # 2017C0405) got stuck in the turn around bay at the Threshold of 16. The runway was NOTAMed closed until the aircraft was towed clear at 2110Z."

Here's a link to an aerodrome chart:
https://www.fltplan.com/AwDisplayAppChart.exe?a=1

If that chart is well-drawn and still current, the turn-round bay near the end of Rwy 34 would present quite a challenge for a long-wheelbase twin taxying on one engine, particularly in wintry conditioons.

weatherdude

3rd Feb 2017, 09:01

"Flugzeugtechniker sind in Iqaluit, um die genaue Ursache des Triebwerkausfalles der Boeing 777-300ER abzuklären und das weitere Vorgehen zu bestimmen."

Aircraft technicians working in Iqaluit in order to find out the engine failure and determining how to go on from there.

WingNut60

3rd Feb 2017, 09:12

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether a GE (or RR, or whoever) engine control will command an autonomous engine shutdown.
Yes, I too can imagine circumstances where it might or alternatively why it should not. And no, I don't mean the engine just ceasing to run because of catastrophic failure, and without being commanded to do so by the controller(s).
But will it?
I can think of several circumstances where it might be a good idea to let the controllers expeditiously command a power / speed reduction. I can even imagine circumstances where, if such a power reduction didn't bring the initiating problem back within tolerable limits it would then be a really good idea to shut the engine down in a hurry rather than risk a disastrous outcome.

But, do any of the major engine manufacturers actually let the system make that decision. And if so, what exactly are those circumstances.

wiggy

3rd Feb 2017, 09:15

cassablanca

I heard of another situation recently where a crew had an inflight shutdown......after talking with ops control they were persuaded to overfly a perfectly acceptable airport and return to home base,

Interesting. I believe this one comes up sometimes on our command upgrades in LOFT detail ( on a twin) . Agreeing to overfly could end up with an interesting debrief.

My two pence worth - The way I play it if I'm faced with a rare "land the nearest suitable airfield" problem or similiar and end up with the time to contact ops control I tell them either:

1. Where I am diverting to.

If it's lightly slightly less dire problem I'll tell them

2: A list of places I am prepared to go.

Only MHO.....

wingnut

But, do any of the major engine manufacturers actually let the system make that decision. And if so, what exactly are those circumstances.

Have a look back at some of tdracer's recent posts.

WingNut60

3rd Feb 2017, 09:28

cassablanca
Have a look back at some of tdracer's recent posts.
Oops, missed that.

EMIT

3rd Feb 2017, 10:23

EK380:

In spite of Vmcg and Vmca, taking off on a single engine would be possible - just do not start right away with full thrust, but with the amount that leaves enough control power to stay on the centerline. As speed increases, so does control power and so you gradually push up the thrust. Guaranteed to work. Needed runway length would be surprisingly short - no need to consider accelerate-stop distance if you begin the run with one engine already failed?

Off course, whether it would be advisable to start a flight on a twin with one engine out is a completely different matter.

Herod

3rd Feb 2017, 10:51

Off course, whether it would be advisable to start a flight on a twin with one engine out is a completely different matter.

Yep; that's why it's got two engines

Hotel Tango

3rd Feb 2017, 10:52

I cannot for the life of me believe that there are so-called professionals advocating a single engine ferry on a 777. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Uplinker

3rd Feb 2017, 11:08

Even if a single GE xxx has sufficient power to theoretically get an empty twin engined aircraft airborne, how would you control the extreme yawing moment caused by setting take-off thrust on only one side ???

As EK380 alludes to, you would not have the steering or rudder authority to keep the thing straight, and I don't know if any runway is long enough to accelerate to Vmcg before setting take-off thrust and then on to V1 and still leave enough distance for an RTO.

Anyone who has done a low speed RTO on a twin engined aircraft in the SIM will know how impossible this would be - losing an engine on a twin at even 40kts with flex thrust set, results in a very sudden and significant yaw, and if you don't get both engines back to idle PDQ, and brake, you will be off the side of the runway.

(Three engined ferry flights, (my experience was BAe146), call for the two symmetrical engines to be set at take-off thrust, and the third engine must only be 'throttled up' above a certain airspeed.)

And even assuming you could get airborne, you would be flying a twin on one engine, which is a LAND ASAP (RED) situation = Land NOW at the nearest suitable runway, i.e. the one you just took off from !!!

Flightmech

3rd Feb 2017, 11:41

Such aircraft could be retrieved and brought to another airport by company's test pilot. Yes, they can obtain a ferry permit and fly it out on a single engine (sufficiently empty of course). It is up to the airline how they want to handle it. I know United had test pilots for jobs like that - they would fly a crippled airliner sometimes across the globe.
Single engine ferry on a large twin? Good luck getting that one approved! "Just feed the power in gently on the other one during the take-off roll" :-)

SLF3

3rd Feb 2017, 11:41

If you have an engine failure on a 777 post V1 the rudder can compensate for the asymmetric thrust.

I'm only SLF, but have been on one where it happened - and whilst it was obvious the engine was in trouble there was no perceptible yaw.

Below V1 it must be OK or an engine failure would result in you going off the runway.

RobertS975

3rd Feb 2017, 12:01

Back in May 1996, a Virgin B747 LHR-LAX diverted to YFB for a medical. First 747 to land there. Whilst taxiing off the runway, one of the outboard engines clipped a structure. The plane needed to be repaired. They must have moved the building because A380 cold weather testing was done at YFB.

wiggy

3rd Feb 2017, 12:32

SLF3

Below V1 it must be OK or an engine failure would result in you going off the runway.

I assume by "it" you mean being able to control the yaw/swing, control flight path etc with the good engine still producing lots of thrust whilst below V1??.

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs and apologies to the purists but simple answer follows .

It's assumed in Boeing, Airbus et.al. procedures that if you have an engine failure below V1 you'll immediately select idle on the (other) good engine PDQ, you don't leave it running at take-off power - because (and there are other reasons) you've got to get rid of the high level of asymmetric thrust - if that is sustained you may well indeed go off the runway....

The reason for this is that below a certain speed ( known as Vmcg, which varies but can be well over 100 knots on the likes of a 777) the rudder hasn't got enough airflow over it to be fully effective in countering the yaw produced by a single engine still running at take-off power.

If you have an engine failure on a 777 post V1 the rudder can compensate for the asymmetric thrust.

Replace "can" by "at high speed, above Vmcg". Below Vmcg the rudder won't be able to compensate anything like enough, certainly in the event of an engine failure at low speed with high asymmetric thrust..( the low speed rudder effectiveness problem again). On a triple and probably all big twins if you set take off power on one engine at say, 30-40 knots, you are going to go off the side, even with full opposite rudder applied .....

This is why people here are commenting that in the event of you (madly) attempting a single engine ferry on a twin you'd need to feed in the (asymmetric) power slowly and wait until the speed has built up, quite possibly to well over 100 knots,, before applying takeoff power.

ATC Watcher

3rd Feb 2017, 14:46

Very well explained wiggy , I would add it is same with old single propeller aircraft with very high power engines( say above 1000 HP) you have to apply power very slowly to get above a certain speed where you have enough aerodynamic rudder control to be able to apply take off power to counter the torque. Basic aerodynamics.

DaveReidUK

3rd Feb 2017, 14:59

It might just be worth reminding ourselves that there has been absolutely no official announcement that even hints at a single-engined ferry scenario.

But don't let that stand in the way of a good story. :O

pilotmike

3rd Feb 2017, 16:00

I can add to Uplinker's comments about taking off with 3 engines, having done so in the 146 for real, not just in the sim.

From memory, the engine opposite the dead engine is initially set to a low setting, having pre-determined and marked the appropriate higher setting on the thrust lever housing. At a given airspeed, the thrust is increased to this pre-determined setting, progressively. Even with inboard engines involved, and significantly de-rated thrust on the asymmetric engine, the swing is significant, and requires careful handling.

As for some believing that a single engine take-off is approved, sensible, or even survivable seems incredible.

Perhaps there is a special, previously unknown friction phenomena afforded by special snow on this runway that magically helps the nosewheel to maintain perfect tracking below Vmcg, against the enormous moment caused by the asymmetric thrust, where mere tarmac just can't cut it. Just sayin!

barit1

3rd Feb 2017, 16:02

UplinkerThree engined ferry flights, (my experience was BAe146), call for the two symmetrical engines to be set at take-off thrust, and the third engine must only be 'throttled up' above a certain airspeed.)

In the DC-10 & MD-11, i believe an engine-out ferry w/ #2 inop could present a related problem: Rapid power up on #1 & #3 might create enough nose-up moment to diminish or lose nosewheel steering effectiveness.

It's a case of the thrust line being well below the center of mass.

JW411

3rd Feb 2017, 16:59

This is possibly the most ridiculous thread that I have ever read on pprune. The very idea of getting a crew together to attempt to fly a 1-engine ferry flight in a B777 is just so beyond the bounds of utter bol*lox that I cannot believe what I am reading.

I have carried out several 3-engine ferry take-offs on 4-engine aircraft and one 2-engine ferry take-off on a 3-engine aircraft.

No pilot on this planet would ever consider a 1-engine take-off on a 2-engine aircraft.

Bearcat

3rd Feb 2017, 17:08

totally agree JW, pure and utter tosh being spouted about a s/e ferry. The aircraft gets repaired with two serviceable powerplants.....end of. I don't envy the engineering task ahead but nothing is impossible. Boeing/GE are just as keen as Swiss to see the aircraft airbourne asap.

wiggy

3rd Feb 2017, 20:36

This is possibly the most ridiculous thread that I have ever read on PPRuNe. The very idea of getting a crew together to attempt to fly a 1-engine ferry flight in a B777 is just so beyond the bounds of utter :mad: that I cannot believe what I am reading.

TBF I don't think any pros have suggested a one engine ferry, most of the later posts have been aimed at telling the non-pros why it's not a good idea.

albatross

3rd Feb 2017, 20:58

https://skyvector.com/airport/CYFB/Iqaluit-Airport
Seems like a nice place to visit if you have just lost an engine. New terminal and friendly folks.
I find the comments, or even the thought, of a single engine take off most amusing. Why would you want to even want to attempt it?

short bus

3rd Feb 2017, 23:57

Wouldn't something like this work in lieu of a heated hanger?

http://www.aviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/igloo_grey_sky.jpg

http://www.aviation.com/commercial/airbus-inflatable-tents-jet-engines/

Carbon Bootprint

4th Feb 2017, 00:11

Wouldn't something like this work in lieu of a heated hanger?
SB, I'd expect they'll do something exactly like that. Given as often as a 777 lands there, I wouldn't expect them to build a hangar just for this one.

Based on the pix from the onsite report (:ok:), it'd be the largest building in town! :)

733driver

4th Feb 2017, 08:11

No pilot on this planet would ever consider a 1-engine take-off on a 2-engine aircraft.

Not so I'm afraid. Granted, not a 777 but a twin jet nonetheless:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980319-1

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilot-in-command's decision to attempt takeoff with the right engine inoperative, resulting in his failure to maintain directional control or attain adequate airspeed during the takeoff attempt. Factors included a fractured right engine starter-generator drive shaft, resulting in an inability to perform a normal engine start on the ground."

casablanca

4th Feb 2017, 09:10

Uplinker

In the DC-10 & MD-11, i believe an engine-out ferry w/ #2 inop could present a related problem: Rapid power up on #1 & #3 might create enough nose-up moment to diminish or lose nosewheel steering effectiveness.

It's a case of the thrust line being well below the center of mass.
World Airways had just such an incident in Anchorage few years back doing a ferry with # 2 engine inop. Although they followed Boeing procedures, ( which called for setting takeoff thrust on 1/3 before brake release) the center gear had been retracted changing the cg, so the aircraft immediately did a wheelie and tail strike.

guadaMB

4th Feb 2017, 09:25

Copied from AVHerald:

"A passenger reported there had been no unusual sounds or vibrations before the captain announced that an engine had failed and they were diverting to Iqaluit. During talks with the cockpit while waiting for the relief flight the captain indicated the crew was puzzled too that the engine just ran down without any unusual indication, sounds or vibrations. On the ground in Iqaluit the aircraft initially could not turn around on the runway, a tow tug subsequently pushed the aircraft back onto the apron about 45 minutes after landing. The passengers were kept on board and were served dinner, customs in Iqaluit is geared to handle international flights with up to 15 passengers only and it didn't make a lot of sense of taking 217 people through immigration, which certainly would take several hours. In the meantime all school busses of Iqaluit were dispatched to the airport to transfer the passengers from the Boeing 777 to the relief A333. While mechanics arriving with the A333 started to check out the engine of the Boeing 777, the cargo was first moved from the B773 to the A333. As there was only one stair available, that could handle the Boeing 777 or A330, the passengers then needed to first disembark and enter the busses, the stairs were then repositioned to the A330, the passengers subsequently embarked the A333 including the entire Boeing 777 crew, who positioned to New York, too. After arrival in New York the passengers were rebooked onto direct flights to their ultimate destinations.

The engine needs to be replaced, the occurrence aircraft is estimated to remain on the ground in Iqaluit for at least 5 days. A replacement engine is being flown in. First information suggests a magnetic chip detector registered metallic particles in the engine oil."

Seem to be the locals put some skills to work and all well done...
There's always a first time.

ATC Watcher

4th Feb 2017, 10:38

Short bus : the problem with this particular model is this "
it is only able to withstand a wind speed of 30 knots (34 mph). This means that the tent would be inoperable in even a weak tropical storm, and would have to be reserved for the sorts of extreme weather that don’t involve high winds.

Metar this morning in Iqaluit is G25 Kts But I am sure they are stronger models existing.

GuadaMB: The locals are very hospitable, flexible and very inventive when you are in any kind trouble. You have to if you live there.
Yes there is a first time in everything , but this also proves that the system works quite well.

WingNut60

4th Feb 2017, 10:45

Somehow I just can not reconcile the paradoxical logic (presumably based on in-depth risk analysis) that says it is safe to operate a twin engine aircraft for up to 3 hours on one engine (ETOPS 180) but then says, in the case of an engine failure you had better land at the first suitable airport, at peril of losing your profession, if you elect to fly a little further to a "more suitable" location ..... ie support services, etc.
The inference, for me, is that the argument for ETOPS is not really as well founded as it should be.

And I guess we'll just have to sit and wait to find out what really caused the engine to shut down.
I guess also that incipient failure of a gearbox could start to shed metal and would be picked up by the chip detectors.
tdtracer - is there any level of engine protection on the engine itself? That is, at a level below the FADEC controller(s)?

Uplinker

4th Feb 2017, 10:52

BluSdUp

4th Feb 2017, 12:08

I start with the end: Never and Never.
Tdracer is the expert and he has spoken.
The PW on the Do328 jet would cut the fuel at 108% if the two other overspeed protection system had failed controlling the overspeed condition.ONLY to introduce fuel as the engine got under control , something that posed majore controleproblems as the engine cycled from 108% idle and 108% over a ca 30 sec time.
All fun and games in the sim.
No FADEC is certified to shut down in the air. periode.

Had a Yank in the sim once that wanted to simulate a ferry flight with one engine.
Why ever do You want to do that? Was my question! Shure it can be done He say! OK ! Go for it.
First he showed me how the Dornier was an expensive lawn mower, then he fed in power gently over 600m runway accelerated to v1( not that consept was valid anymore.and climbed away at V2 with a grin on his face.
Having used ca 2500 meters runway.
We then proceeded with two engines and he did a roll.
(Something that HAS been done with a 328 by Air Engedina on a ferry flight, observed by an offduty Swiss CAA Guy , OOPS!)

With that out of his system we vent for coffee and we decided to Get With The Program.
Twin Singel engine Ferry,, Dream On!1

Dairyground

4th Feb 2017, 12:21

From Gordomac:

Just to repeat the Saturday morning teaser ; You are overhead LCA. Engine quits (no, NOT "automatic", engines DO quit). Into the hold, complete drills, mayday 'n' all that ; Company calls you and asks you to proceed to some place down the road where they have a spare engine & anyway, LCA have an engineers strike in progress and Dispatch show 12o kt tailwind to "preferred" alternate.

From a Persistent Passenger who has learn what seems a lot from this and other threads:

How high over LCA does this example event occur;
How long will it take to get from there to grouind level;
How does that time compare with time to anywhere with better facilities?

DaveReidUK

4th Feb 2017, 12:22

Would any aircraft engineers like to comment about the challenges of a non hangar engine change in extreme conditions?

Aircraft engineers often have to work in miserable weather conditions out on the ramp: Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?

In my experience of engine changes on widebodies (albeit RR rather than GE), I'd say the two things you wouldn't want to be exposed to are rain and wind. Low temperatures are a pain, rather than a showstopper, but if you're providing temporary protection from the elements it's not that difficult to fix up some heating at the same time, which makes the job a bit more bearable.

misd-agin

4th Feb 2017, 12:54

Dairyground - normal distance to descend from cruise altitude to destination is 120-140 nm.
Emergency, max effort, from max certified altitude, is probably closer to 70 nm.

The time for a normal descent is 25-30 minutes. You can usually estimate your time of arrival based on when the first descent starts assuming normal airspace constraints and arrival flow.

An emergency, max effort, would be closer to 8-10 minutes. Slightly quicker for lower cruise altitudes. If time is critical it doesn't matter if you're over a runway if you're too high. It takes time, and distance, to reduce the altitude.

So being right over an alternate doesn't help much. It's actually easiest if it's 120-140 nm ahead of you when you make the decision to divert and you're ready for the descent. From there you'd just do a normal descent.

flight_mode

4th Feb 2017, 13:17

An AN-124 has just left Zurich for YFB

Airbubba

4th Feb 2017, 14:45

An AN-124 has just left Zurich for YFB

Yep, you can follow the Antonov's progress here:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ur-82007/#c5d120d

Chris Scott

4th Feb 2017, 14:46

Quote from WingNut60:
"Somehow I just can not reconcile the paradoxical logic (presumably based on in-depth risk analysis) that says it is safe to operate a twin engine aircraft for up to 3 hours on one engine (ETOPS 180) but then says, in the case of an engine failure you had better land at the first suitable airport, at peril of losing your profession, if you elect to fly a little further to a "more suitable" location ..... ie support services, etc.
The inference, for me, is that the argument for ETOPS is not really as well founded as it should be."

Fair discussion point. Many of us were sceptical during the evolution of ETOPS provisions in the 1980s and '90s. I guess we've been waiting for something like a diversion to Nassarsuak** in marginal conditions, and keeping our fingers crossed.

Maybe the difference between the situations before and after the engine failure is that, without permitting flight up to (say) 3 hours at single-engine speed from the nearest suitable aerodrome, the flight would have to be cancelled, re-routed, or operated with more than two engines.

On any given flight with these turbofans the first engine failure has proved to be, as argued then, an extremely low probability. Once it has taken place, the probability of a second failure is comparable: i.e., extremely low, in the 3 hours allowed. But it would almost certainly be catastrophic. Therefore, anything that can be done to mitigate that risk should be done.

The choice of aerodrome, if there is choice, may involve judgment. But the criterion of maximising the safety and welfare of the passengers and crew must take priority over any others, including operational considerations and aircraft recovery. None of that overrides the commander’s discretion, of course.

As they say: just my tuppence' worth.

** (Although I'm not sure Nassarsuak is necessary in the ETOPS 180 case.)

India Charlie

4th Feb 2017, 15:21

Pictures and info (in German) from a passenger aboard LX40:
Mit SWISS in die USA - via Iqaluit (YFB) wegen Sicherheitslandung nach Triebwerksausfall (http://www.vielfliegertreff.de/reiseberichte/104899-mit-swiss-die-usa-via-iqaluit-yfb-wegen-sicherheitslandung-nach-triebwerksausfall.html)

ATC Watcher

4th Feb 2017, 15:47

"Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?"

minus 30C, vinds gusting 25 Kts, so chilling factor around -40C , you call this a " great fun" challenge ?
Super cold metal = another challenge is to unscrew fastened bolts torqued at or near standard temp I would say.

sdh2903

4th Feb 2017, 17:55

The triple uses pylon mounted bootstrap hoists as most other engines do. Only issue with these larger bypass engines is that the propulsor and fan sections have to be separated to ship them. This then gives the engineers a bit more work to do in reassembly.

With regards to the environmental conditions, any airline worth their salt will have a portable engine change tent that will be packed up along with all the other engine change gear. A few heaters and lights rigged up and it will be no worse than changing an engine in a cold hangar in the winter. Well, as long as they keep the doors firmly shut that is.

billysmart

4th Feb 2017, 18:26

All depends on how big the plane carrying the spare is doesn't it.. and this case there isn't a need to split the engine. Tents are normally rented when required.

Reason for shutdown is fully known ... just not reported in blick.ch .....yet.

Bearcat

4th Feb 2017, 19:19

It's -29c there now.......brrrrrrr

India Charlie

4th Feb 2017, 19:31

The An-124 with the replacement engine has just arrived at YFB (3.30 pm EST). The fun begins!

averow

4th Feb 2017, 19:59

Not so I'm afraid. Granted, not a 777 but a twin jet nonetheless:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980319-1

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilot-in-command's decision to attempt takeoff with the right engine inoperative, resulting in his failure to maintain directional control or attain adequate airspeed during the takeoff attempt. Factors included a fractured right engine starter-generator drive shaft, resulting in an inability to perform a normal engine start on the ground."
733Driver; The info on the web about this "accident" are quite revealing. The hubris and idiocy of the PIC are staggering. Luckily they didn't kill a lot of folks on the ground.

Herod

4th Feb 2017, 20:58

Well done the handling agents as well.

fly4beer

4th Feb 2017, 22:20

So what was it? Gearbox?

HPSOV L

5th Feb 2017, 05:45

Arguments regarding seletion of an alternate during EDTO/ETOPS can be settled by reading FAA AC 120-42B. It may use the old terminology but it is still in effect. It explains in plain English with examples what are, and are not, acceptable reasons to select a more distant airport for diversion. EASA does not have an equivelant document but a broad reading of all their regs delivers the same message.

Hint: You need to be monitoring all suitable airports on your route, not just the ones the dispatcher plucked to make up a flight plan showing the aircraft could legally dispatch.

firefly15

5th Feb 2017, 06:22

Arguments regarding seletion of an alternate during EDTO/ETOPS can be settled by reading FAA AC 120-42B. It may use the old terminology but it is still in effect. It explains in plain English with examples what are, and are not, acceptable reasons to select a more distant airport for diversion. EASA does not have an equivelant document but a broad reading of all their regs delivers the same message.

EASA AMC 20-6
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20II%20-%20AMC%2020-6.pdf

Anilv

5th Feb 2017, 08:51

re engine-out ferries.

Even on triples and quads it is not a simple matter. Some airlines will not allow their own crews to ferry out a 747 with 3 engines but will call in a team from Boeing to do the job. Insurance plays a big part in deciding.

IIRC China Airline had a problem with an engine in Manila (747). They elected to ferry the airplane out and it ended up in the mud.

I believe the ferry was required to to an engine damaged by a pod-strike but I am unable to confirm this. This was in the early 90s or late 80s. the runway excursion was due to asymmetric thrust.

Anil

Anilv

5th Feb 2017, 09:06

Could only find this reference online but I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription!!

CAL 747 Leaves Runway, Shuts Down Manila | AWIN content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awin/cal-747-leaves-runway-shuts-down-manila)

I'd imagine the incident 2 days previously necessitated the ferry which ended up of the paved surface.

Anil

edit.. found a pic
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-filipino-engineers-inspect-the-damage-of-a-china-airlines-jumbo-jet-118030556.html

Bergerie1

5th Feb 2017, 12:00

Fifth engine ferry flights are normal on many 4 engine types, and passengers can be carried too. But passengers are never carried when a 4 engine aircraft is flown on 3 engine ferry flight.

misd-agin

5th Feb 2017, 13:05

A town of 6,000 accommodating 250+ passengers is probably easier to handle than a town of 120 accommodating 120 people a la the AA 787 diversion into Cold Bay, Alaska.

ExXB

5th Feb 2017, 13:13

They stayed on the aircraft until the A330 arrived. They never entered 'Canada' or Iqualit.

AC560

5th Feb 2017, 13:40

Single engine ferry permit eh ?

That's one i'd like to see !

On the original Aercommander they pulled off one of the props, tossed it in the cabin, and flew to D.C. on their certification flight. Different times but with a more awesome plane.

Anyone remember the UA D10 they tried to ferry an engine ORD-HNL in the 90's. It got to DEN if I recall and they stopped due to it almost shaking the plane apart.

atlast

5th Feb 2017, 13:51

Fantastic call, great job!

oyviv

5th Feb 2017, 14:47

Fifth engine ferry flights are normal on many 4 engine types, and passengers can be carried too. But passengers are never carried when a 4 engine aircraft is flown on 3 engine ferry flight.
I suppose 4 engines were running on this B747, but I'm not sure!
As for pax only some 20 airline staff
were allowed on board and we all had to sign a form that we were flying at
our own risk.
Besides the cabin crew were in civvies.
Maybe BA accepted us because otherwise we could have been stuck at
SEZ for ages!

But back on track: Swiss handled the YFB incident admirably!

Airbubba

5th Feb 2017, 14:58

An updated local news article discusses some of the pax and logistics issues:

Flight 40 passenger Judith Conrady, writing about her experience for the German online news site RP, described how the pilot said, “I am sorry to wake you up. We are about halfway between Zurich and Los Angeles. We have to land at the nearest airport. Because of a technical problem. The nearest airport, Iqaluit, is located in the top north of Canada.”

When the aircraft landed in Iqaluit, everyone applauded, Conrady said. The thought of getting off the aircraft was tempting, she said, but then the temperature dropped and darkness fell.

The passengers were remarkably quiet, she said, and some were even in a good mood despite the inconvenience: “This is probably due to the fact that the situation was so absurd that one could not help but accept it.”

The switch to the second aircraft sent to take the passengers on was complex, as Conrady described it: after the plane’s arrival at about 2 a.m. Feb. 2, two aircraft stairs had to be set up so they could head down into five heated school buses. Then the stairs—and the buses—were pulled up to the new aircraft, which took them on to their way to JFK International Airport in New York City.

“I would have liked Iqaluit. Surely it is the city that made the most impression on me without ever having entered it,” Conrady said.
A shortage of customs agents onsite has been suggested as a reason for why those on board were unable to tour the city.

Meanwhile, Frobisher Bay Touchdown Services, which takes care of contracted ground handling in Iqaluit, scrambled to provide services to Swiss International— and to take care of puppies in the hold. They left a message for the owners: “we kept your fur babies warm, watered and fed, we went for a quick walk bathroom break as well,” assuring them that their animals had been in good hands.

Here's an estimate for the repair time in the article:

The Swiss International jet is likely to remain in Iqaluit for several weeks as a team carries out the repairs.

Fuhlrott said she couldn’t confirm how many people would be involved in the repairs or how long the repairs would require, due to the “adverse conditions.”

There is no hangar to protect workers, so unless a tent is put up, all work on the aircraft will be done outside, in some of the coldest weather Iqaluit sees all year.

Pictures and video of the Ant and the new engine in the article:

NunatsiaqOnline 2017-02-04: NEWS: Huge Antonov aircraft flies engine to Nunavut for stranded Swiss jet (http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674huge_antonov_aircraft_brings_engine_to_flight_stranded_ in_nunavut/)

Rwy in Sight

5th Feb 2017, 20:54

I understand an A330 in KJFK did play a vital role flying out to pick up the stranded pax and deliver them in New York. This A330 was there, I suppose to fly a New York - Switzerland flight. So what happened to that flight and how the Switzerland reached their destination?

barit1

5th Feb 2017, 21:47

Swiss had to wind up sending an extra aircraft to JFK at some point to fill the gap. It could have been a deadhead or training flight, or an extra section of a revenue flight. Actually that was already accomplished when the A330 arrived from ZRH.

But it gets recovered to ZRH when this 777 is fullly operational.

barit1

5th Feb 2017, 22:07

Bergerie1:
Fifth engine ferry flights are normal on many 4 engine types, and passengers can be carried too. But passengers are never carried when a 4 engine aircraft is flown on 3 engine ferry flight.

Getting more precise with language here: Carrying a spare engine in a fifth (or fourth) pod is not a "ferry" flight at all. It can be a normal revenue flight, albeit with revised performance data due to increased weight and drag.

Engine-out ferry is a different matter. This is done with the sole objective of moving the plane to a facility that can accomplish needed repairs. Takeoff thrust is 75% or 67% of normal. The performance planning must consider the risk of an additional engine failure. Minimum loads; no passengers or baggage. To reiterate, Engine-out ferry is a different matter.

tdracer

6th Feb 2017, 01:04

tdtracer - is there any level of engine protection on the engine itself? That is, at a level below the FADEC controller(s)? It depends on the engine. It's required by the regulations that the engine be protected against an uncontrolled overspeed condition. As I noted, some FADEC engines have a hydro-mechanical fly-ball governor that will hold the N2/N3 rotor just above redline (it's assumed if the high rotor goes over redline and stays there, something pretty serious has gone wrong with the FADEC's ability to control the engine) - if somehow the FADEC regains control the engine will subsequently react normally below redline. The CF6-80C2 FADEC, GE90, and RB211-524G/H fall into this category. The PW2000 has an interesting variation - it's has a fly-ball governor, if N2 goes over redline it trips a mechanical circuit and the governor will hold N2 at 85% N2.
The PW4000, Trent (at least on Boeing installations), and the GEnx use an electronic overspeed protection - details vary but there is an independent circuit in the FADEC that if N2/N3 exceeds a set value it'll close the fuel metering valve (completely in the case of GE and Rolls, min flow stop for the PW4000). Once activated the electronic overspeed is latched, the FADEC must be reset to unlatch it.
Rolls has an additional electronic system on the Trent - the Rolls three spool design makes bearing design particularly tricky, and there have been cases where a bearing failure has sheared the shaft between fan (or compressor) and the turbine, allowing the turbine to accelerate uncontrolled and burst. So the Trent has a specific "Turbine OverSpeed" protection" (TOS) that monitors the rotor speeds at both ends - if they differ it'll shutdown the engine.

AJW709

6th Feb 2017, 01:48

From twitter:

https://twitter.com/BonzBrooks/status/828326257439891457

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 06:32

I love the last post on that Twitter thread:

"did they fly in a crew to help with the engine exchange?"

If only they'd had a F/E, he'd have managed it on his own. :O

Flightmech

6th Feb 2017, 09:09

So are the AN124 crew getting a Nunavut vacation while they wait around to take the unserviceable engine home or are they going back for it later?

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 10:33

No reports or photos that I can find on the Net of it departing, so presumably it's still there. FlightRadar24 was reporting for a time that the same aircraft (UR-82027) was in Turkmenistan yesterday, but that sounds pretty dubious.

I suspect the press quote

The Swiss International jet is likely to remain in Iqaluit for several weeks as a team carries out the repairs.will turn out to be a bit of Inuit wishful thinking.

India Charlie

6th Feb 2017, 11:56

The An-124 which ferried the replacement engine to Iqaluit was UR-82007. It hasn't been seen on FR24 after it landed there on Saturday. So I presume it's still there.

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 12:24

Ah, that explains it. :\

Bergerie1

6th Feb 2017, 14:23

barit 1,
You are, indeed, correct. I was not precise in my use of language

Machinbird

6th Feb 2017, 14:43

Can we assume that the replacement engine was essentially built up (QEC) configuration, or are there a lot of parts to be transferred between engines?
Anyone know?

PilotsResearch

6th Feb 2017, 14:59

https://twitter.com/BonzBrooks/status/828551655993929729

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 15:51

You are, indeed, correct. I was not precise in my use of language

In your defence, a "fifth engine ferry" is a perfectly good description of a flight whose secondary purpose (in addition to carrying revenue passengers) is to ferry the fifth engine somewhere. :O

Can we assume that the replacement engine was essentially built up (QEC) configuration, or are there a lot of parts to be transferred between engines?

I'd have hoped that in the two-and-a-half days that elapsed between the landing at Iqualuit and the Antonov departing from Zurich that somebody would have had the common sense to arrange that.

Otherwise, swapping accessories from the dead engine in the tent to the replacement one in the cold outside wouldn't have been a lot of fun. But then again, it's the bean-counters who say what goes nowadays ...

hoss183

6th Feb 2017, 16:02

Quote from WingNut60:
On any given flight with these turbofans the first engine failure has proved to be, as argued then, an extremely low probability. Once it has taken place, the probability of a second failure is comparable: i.e., extremely low, in the 3 hours allowed. But it would almost certainly be catastrophic. Therefore, anything that can be done to mitigate that risk should be done.

Unless the failure is related. I bet the G-YMMM incident at Heathrow pop into their heads - engine roll back due to icing of the fuel heat exchangers. If its in your mind that the second might do the same, you might land rather sharpish.

obgraham

6th Feb 2017, 16:19

What about the rest of the aircraft? Sitting about for a week or more at -30 unprepared for such an eventuality. Lots of systems with water, etc., not to mention all the electronics, (and even the mini-wine bottles).

Heat the a/c the whole time, or just fire it up, bring to temp, and go?

mingocr83

6th Feb 2017, 16:23

Engine is out and the new one is going in..

https://twitter.com/BonzBrooks/status/828651719194054657

tdracer

6th Feb 2017, 17:59

What about the rest of the aircraft?
When we took a 747-8F there for cold weather engine start testing about six years ago, they never turned off the APU...

I once had American Airlines maintenance tell me they could remove and replace a 767 engine (CF6) in a shift under ideal circumstances (e.g. at a maintenance base). I'm sure a GE90 takes longer (and doing it at Iqaluit is far from ideal), but I'll be surprised if they aren't done and the 777 back in service by the end of the week.

pax2908

6th Feb 2017, 18:16

#144 mingocr83 that picture cannot be the actual thing?

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 18:42

#144 mingocr83 that picture cannot be the actual thing?

Why not? Looks like a pair of GE90s to me.

Rwy in Sight

6th Feb 2017, 19:04

The background does not seem to correspond to the tent used!

And then there is the questions about what happens to the "problematic" engine. By the way why they did not try to fix it and when is it going to be used again?

mingocr83

6th Feb 2017, 19:19

tdracer, it is..the twitter account belongs to a local in iqaluit, he has been posting the progress of the ENG change.

SWBKCB

6th Feb 2017, 19:22

Both engines off the a/c and being prepped in a hangar?

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 19:34

Both engines off the a/c and being prepped in a hangar?

Er, the one in the background here, perhaps?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3_1xEKUMAEhfWt.jpg

short bus

6th Feb 2017, 19:58

I'm surprised to see the Antonov is waiting, chilling you might say.

I don't know the economics of it, but I would have guessed the Antonov would have been kept busy with other jobs and come back for a pick up at a later date.

HighAndFlighty

6th Feb 2017, 20:01

Also note the Antonov in the lower right of the picture, just hanging around to fly out the dud engine.

Edit: short bus beat me to it.

lomapaseo

6th Feb 2017, 20:04

I'm surprised to see the Antonov is waiting, chilling you might say.

I don't know the economics of it, but I would have guessed the Antonov would be kept busy with other jobs and come back for a pick up at a later date.

is it not possible that the Antonov is only waiting a couple of daylight hours for the dead engine to be loaded.

I wonder what the break even $$$ point is between waiting like a taxi vs having the dead engine stuck for weeks at that location waiting for another taxi to arrive ?

tdracer

6th Feb 2017, 20:05

And then there is the questions about what happens to the "problematic" engine. By the way why they did not try to fix it and when is it going to be used again?
I'm sure they'll load the broken engine back on the Antonov and fly it to wherever Swiss has their GE90 maintenance done. Repairing an engine on-site is seldom practical - big turbine engines require very specialized tooling to disassemble below the module level. Plus they apparently found debris in the oil - regardless of the source they'll need to tear down and flush out the oil system to prevent the debris from causing new problems.

short bus

6th Feb 2017, 20:11

After a "field repair" like this, does it get sent back to a Swiss Air maintenance facility to get checked over before going back into service?

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 20:38

After a "field repair" like this, does it get sent back to a Swiss Air maintenance facility to get checked over before going back into service?

The aircraft isn't going to leave Iqualuit with an engine that needs to be "checked over". Once it has been satisfactorily ground run, the aircraft will be released for service.

Whether an engine change has been done on a tent in northern Canada or a Zurich hangar should make no difference.

Airbubba

6th Feb 2017, 21:24

The aircraft isn't going to leave Iqualuit with an engine that needs to be "checked over". Once it has been satisfactorily ground run, the aircraft will be released for service.

I asked this question earlier but it seemed to disappear in one of the periodic thread purges.

Wouldn't an ETOPS/EROPS plane need some sort of flight test before taking it over water? Or, could the test be done on the trip to ZRH with the ferry crew and the next leg could be a revenue sector?

Over the years I've occasionally had notes from maintenance like a request to start the APU after it is cold soaked in cruise, verify stable operation and shut it back down to comply with an ETOPS validation. And I did an odd gear down ferry as a flight engineer years ago. It was less than an hour and everything else was normal, or so the mechanics told me. ;)

However, I'm thinking that an engine change at the base is normally followed by a separate full blown test flight before the aircraft is released to revenue operations.

Would Swiss do a functional check flight near Frobay, land and then put on fuel for a ferry out? Or, can they head out over the pond, do the checks and if something doesn't look good, visit Narsarsuaq?

Chris Scott

6th Feb 2017, 21:37

Great pictures, and I hope it won't seem patronising to say that this whole affair, and the way it has been handled, has really put Iqaluit/Frobisher on the map for some of us southerners that never had the privilege to land there.

Quote from hoss183:
"I bet the G-YMMM incident at Heathrow pop into their heads - engine roll back due to icing of the fuel heat exchangers. If its in your mind that the second might do the same, you might land rather sharpish."

Yes. The only reservation I have (sitting comfortably at home :cool:) would be the case where the alternate was rendered unsafe, owing to sudden strife or natural events, or had insufficient shelter for the passengers and no fuel. (That was why I mentioned welfare.)

In that case, of course, one would hope to have previously ruled the aerodrome out at the flight-planning stage.

BluSdUp

6th Feb 2017, 21:48

Hi All
Just back from some cold , cod fishing. Pulling the net at plus 2c mind u is summer temp for Frobisher, Iqaluit.
Now:Minus 29, northwest wind at 13 knots make the nuts brittle,,,,,.!

Now back to basic winter ops.
1
Drain all water! Ps Wait until after flight crew has had a chance to have a piss. And do not drain on apron , as morning crew will break their neck on walkarround and if not pushback may be effected.
2
Connect external heated air and make shure all vents are open, just like in hot wx in summer.
3
Check gear and brakes free of snow and ice.

More to come in next chapter.

I must say I greatly enjoy this thread, considering the happy ending.
The HQ suits in Swiss has done a great job and this whole thing can be a textbook example for crew to read up on.

With regards to the Antonov crew , they are just waiting for the next gig.
If nothing happens, no empty trip. If anything pop up, gone.
Unless Swiss pay for them to wait for x days.
In that case , i think some raindeer hunting and noserubbing is on as we speak. Many good Ukrainian out in Canada, I used to work for Crazy Bill in Stewart Lake ,,,,,,,
ANYWAY,,,
Looking forward to the engine run. Never done one in a 777.
Can see some issues doing a static 100% on one engine up there.
Remember the Do328 TP needed to be full fuel , if not it would be so light it pulled forward on blocked wheels.

Hope someone gets a video for us. Good luck to all the crew involved.
Lets hope she fires on the first try.
Cpt B

DaveReidUK

6th Feb 2017, 21:51

However, I'm thinking that an engine change at the base is normally followed by a separate full blown test flight before the aircraft is released to revenue operations.

Would Swiss do a functional check flight near Frobay, land and then put on fuel for a ferry out? Or, can they head out over the pond, do the checks and if something doesn't look good, visit Narsarsuaq?

If every aircraft required an air test after an engine change, the world's skies would be black with aircraft flying around going nowhere.

wiggy

6th Feb 2017, 21:56

Airbubba

Wouldn't an ETOPS/EROPS plane need some sort of flight test before taking it over water? Or, could the test be done on the trip to ZRH with the ferry crew and the next leg could be a revenue sector?

Every circumstance is different I guess but I do know if we've had an straightforward engine change on our ETOPS type the "check" basically involves getting airborne and can be considered done if all is OK before entering the ETOPS segment of the route (if there is one) , then a quick write up in the tech log and a suitable message is ACARS'd to base...that is it.

I've done a handful post engine change and there's nothing Yeageresque about the check, no slam checks/ engine acceleration checks or anything, it's basically a question of does the engine work ok for takeoff, climb and initial cruise, so FWIW though probably not relevant in this case it can and often is done on a revenue sector immediately after an engine change.

BluSdUp

6th Feb 2017, 22:30

Airbubba.
Looks to me they came in over Greenland north of Narsasuaq with no ETOPS required. Returning I shure as hell stay away from that place.
Take route a litle north and Søndre Strømfjord is Your safe haven then Keflavik and Bergen.
Narsasuaq is lovely if you are on fire with a 777, but if not, DONT.
Did calibration flights in a Beech 200 there and the rest of the coast up to Disco Bay, fantastic. summer of 1994.
Remember buzzing Eric The Reds homestead on final,,,

Any problem on takeoff head for Gander?
Anyway, in a few days we see.

Airbubba

6th Feb 2017, 22:31

Thanks for the insight wiggy. Now that you mention it, I've had some sort of maintenance note requesting a procedure be done before going ETOPS to raise the dispatch to 180 minute rule. Since we were already airborne, we got a redispatch for the 180 minute alternates.

Also, now that I look at it, Frobay may be far enough north that you could get to ZRH on a Blue Spruce routing without ETOPS if needed.

wiggy

6th Feb 2017, 22:41

Airbubba
Yep, UK/EASA rules for us but it's similar, if the ETOPS check is required you effectively depart using the 60 minute rule. If the check fails you have to replan to stay within 60 min (for a minor fail) or RTB (something more significant) if you pass you're ok for 180 min.

Airbubba

6th Feb 2017, 23:50

Narsasuaq is lovely if you are on fire with a 777, but if not, DONT.

I've had Nars and Sondrestorm in the paperwork since the late 1980's but sadly, I've never landed either place. ;)

Anilv

6th Feb 2017, 23:59

The two engines in the hangar side-by-side are probably having some ancillaries swapped over.

At based you would have what is called a 'QEC kit' (quick-engine change) which is basically a duplicate set of ancillaries which will be fitted onto the space engine while the broken engine is being removed., thus saving a few minutes.

YRP

7th Feb 2017, 00:34

If every aircraft required an air test after an engine change, the world's skies would be black with aircraft flying around going nowhere.

Aircraft engines might just be slightly more reliable than that, perhaps not _quite_ that many engine changes going on. :)

DaveReidUK

7th Feb 2017, 06:40

I know, I know, my parents must have told me a million times not to exaggerate.

Joking aside, in all my years in aircraft maintenance the only air tests I can recall were a couple for troubleshooting a hard-to-reproduce problem, and one that I hitched a ride on following a horizontal stabilizer replacement. That one was a good test of your faith in your workmanship :O.

matkat

7th Feb 2017, 09:23

The only check flights I ever done were end of lease/redelivery and when more than one engine had been changed.

JammedStab

7th Feb 2017, 19:29

A few thoughts,

YFB is not difficult to land in under the conditions that day. ILS to a decent length runway into wind and a fairly large area to park.

If they shut the aircraft down in the cold, they would definitely want to drain the water to avoid possible damage from frozen water in pipes etc. But there is a good chance that it will be kept warm.

Somebody mentioned about why they didn't go to Vancouver which is 1 hour away. It is more like 4 hours away. That is why. You are required to go to the nearest suitable airport. Nearest time-wise that is which is not necessarily, your ETOPS alternate. That being said, the PIC can determine what is suitable and what is not, and a legal alternate may not be suitable. I have seen an ETOPS alternate where the runway conditions were 3/3/3 and no plowing at the present time. Performance calculations(airport is not even in the performance database and has to be manually created) showed that you had to dump to max landing weight and were just barely able to land within the limits. Legal but not suitable in my opinion. I do know of one airline overflying a suitable remote airport with a twin having shut down an engine on directions from the company. The government agency wasn't happy but the boss was.

Landing at a remote airport like this does present some logistical difficulties including the cold at this time of year and getting an engine to location. I remember a United 777 diverting to YZF due to an engine problem. Took two weeks to get the plane out of there. As the engines get bigger, so do the size of the aircraft required to fly them. C130's are fine for a 767 engine but the GE90 requires something really big. UA used a 747 to fly their replacement engine, but, YZF had no Main Deck loader so they flew it to Edmonton and trucked it up to YZF in the middle of the winter including crossing a winter time ice road across the Mackenzie River. United has their own group of specialists for this kind of situation, who I'm sure were not happy when it went down to -38 on the night of the engine change.

I have done the cargo flying of a replacement engine, a CFM 56 for an A340 over to Hawaii. Usually you wait around for the old engine to be removed which may already be part way there, as much as possible by the time you arrive with the replacement. In our case, we were out of there the next day before they even had the new engine up and operating which is a bad idea on the part of the airline as a situation may arise where they need parts off the old engine. But the airline doesn't like to pay for the expensive waiting time of the freighters sometimes. And seeing as your freighter may be the only one around, the charges may be steep. So we left early before the engine was up and running and when we got back home after a long expensive flight, we found out that they had problems with the replacement engine(electrical stuff) and couldn't start it. So we did another ferry flight back to Hawaii with a new replacement engine. Heard GE foot the bill for that one.

I wonder if there is an insurance policy available for this kind of situation.

Chris Scott

7th Feb 2017, 20:28

Quote from Jammed Stab:
"Somebody mentioned about why they didn't go to Vancouver which is 1 hour away. It is more like 4 hours away."

For the record, I thought the same as you. In fact, we may both be presbyopic? :O The poster wrote YYR (Goose Bay), but I also misread it as YVR (Vancouver). When I eventually noticed my mistake, I estimated Goose Bay was about an extra 90 mins at S/E speed form overhead Iqaluit, which would have been passed on the way. But I don't think the poster was in fact advocating going there, and I certainly wouldn't.

A. Muse

7th Feb 2017, 20:40

I wonder if there is an insurance policy available for this kind of situation.

It's the same as any insurance requirements, provided it is a risk, and not a certainty there will be a rate for the risk. Whether you want to pay the going rate is the decision you (or the bean counters) have to make.

Odd risks like this would usually end up with specialist underwriters at Lloyds of London

davidjpowell

7th Feb 2017, 20:59

This is going to cost someone a pretty penny presumably?

Landing fee's.
Fuel to fly A330 retrieval flight.
Compensation for A330 cancelled ex New York.
Compensation for 777 delayed/re-routed passengers.
1 x engine.
1x Anatov 124 Hire (query - will they need it again to retrieve the old engine.. presumably not scrapped?)
Engineers + equipment eg tent
When repaired - getting crew on-site
Fuel to fly plane to somewhere useful...

twochai

7th Feb 2017, 21:46

YFB is not difficult to land in under the conditions that day.

It is informative to note in the still photos of the approach the Trailing Edge Right rudder angle on the Triple, even down to the flare. He was carrying significant power on the RH engine all the way but obviously had Vref nailed as the a/c floated very little. Possibly an Autoland?

Nice work, Swiss..

Chu Chu

7th Feb 2017, 22:35

BluSdUp

7th Feb 2017, 23:33

If you run an airline, this will happen. Its part of normal cost.
I suspect a lot of pilots want to help the company by selecting a convenient airport.
Murphy, and the local CAA dont see it that way.

Firstly, in this case the cost is big, regardless. Need an Antonov, no hangar big enough, need to divert a A330 or bigger asap and feed out their pax anyway. Bla Bla Bla.
At the end, Frobisher Gander Goose Søndrestrøm or Churchill for that matter, no one has a spare laying around in a big hangar.

THE RISK of getting creative on one engine up north has only one outcome if the last one gives in.
And Yes, the statistical chances are slim. For certification.In real life much higher.
In real life we, together with Murphy come up with ever more ways of going
gliding 101.

I repeat myself: , land at the nearest suitable( or ASAP i think AB says).
gives the commander a direct order.
What company thinks is not remotely interesting, but can be deadly in delay of heading for a safe haven.
Up north you are always running a" hallo, goodbye list "of ASAP divert, that beeing for medical, unruley pax, smoke, fire, engine fail etc.
There is no ideal end to the story. Just a safe landing.
This was the ideal divert.
If it gets to cold , Boys , head over to the Antonov, they still have anti frezze
100 proof
Nostrovija!!

Airbubba

8th Feb 2017, 00:16

I wonder if anyone has realistic figures for this, but if the chance of an engine failure on a given flight is one in 100,000, and the chance of a single fault failing both engines is one in a billion, this would mean that one of every 10,000 engine failures is a dual failure. In that scenario, when the left engine failed, the odds of the right engine failing would immediately jump by a factor of 10 (from one in 100,000 to one in 10,000).

I'm not rightly sure I follow your math(s). Aren't you mixing independent and dependent probabilities in your analysis?

And speaking of landing up North, FAA regs require a passenger recovery plan in the ops manual for polar ops:

Passenger recovery plan. Revised regulation 14 CFR 121.135 requires that for all ETOPS flying beyond 180 minutes (excluding 207-minute ETOPS, as explained above), and for all polar operations, the air carrier must develop a plan to ensure the well-being of passengers and crew members at each approved en route alternate airport listed in this carrier's operations specifications. Because challenging alternate airports tend to be found in the most remote parts of the world, passenger recovery plans are no longer required for ETOPS below 180 minutes.

This passenger recovery plan must address the safety and comfort, in terms of facilities and accommodations, of stranded passengers at the diversion airport. As its name suggests, it must also address their prompt retrieval from the airport.

Polar operations also require passenger recovery plans, as codified in this rulemaking's polar policy. Initially implemented as an FAA policy letter in 2001, this polar policy also requires diversion airport planning, another key ETOPS concept. Despite these similarities, however, polar operations are distinct from ETOPS because North and South Polar operations entail unique requirements, such as special onboard equipment and a fuel freeze strategy.

AERO - The New FAA Etops Rule (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_02_5.html)

Again, I presume there is something similar in the European regs.

oliver2002

8th Feb 2017, 06:16

It seems they did have to dump some fuel as they were diverting to YFB. The airfield scrambled to clear the runway, but couldn't do a complete job in time, so the landing was done on the partially cleared runway.
Another interesting angle to the prefect landing is that Swiss hired/transferred their ARJ flight crew to the 777 ops as the existing A330/340 wanted wage hikes. :) The horror scenario presented by the union in the press after this decision was 'imagine a RJ pilot having to deal with an emergency over the atlantic' :D

efcop

8th Feb 2017, 07:14

this was two years ago and the topic has since become obsolete as the unions have merged.

widmimabi

8th Feb 2017, 07:21

The captain is an ex- Swissair...
Well done!!!

PoloJamie

8th Feb 2017, 08:42

wiggy

8th Feb 2017, 08:52

Just a guess but regardless of the age of the airframe I suspect only if you can show Boeing or GE were to be blame in some way, otherwise I suspect this might fall into the category of "S happens" ( maybe the airline itself has suitable insurance for diversions such as this - don't know if they do, would be interested to know)?

billysmart

8th Feb 2017, 11:34

Engine replaced yesterday, initial test ok. High power run later today. Airport will be closed during that time.

matkat

8th Feb 2017, 11:49

PJ, in a previous life I was involved in warranty issues with new A/C going technical all that Boeing(don't know about AB but suspect the same policy) would pay for was the cost associated with repair and not anything else such as PAX costs ferrying crews A/C or equipment etc.

DingerX

8th Feb 2017, 14:08

Often, people (including aviation professionals) will classify any uncommanded shutdown as an "automatic" shutdown - that only really means that the engine quit without any crew input.
Educated guess, based on what I know about the GE90, is that it was a gearbox issue. Something in the gearbox fails, drive is lost to the fuel pump, no fuel pump means no fuel and the engine "automatically" shuts down...

...and so tdracer on page 3 of this thread has the winning answer:

On Feb 8th 2017 The Aviation Herald received information that the angle gearbox, connecting the gear box to the N2 rotor, cracked causing the gear box to disengage, as result the high pressure fuel pumps were no longer operating causing the engine to shut down due to fuel starvation. An engine restart was not attempted in consultation with dispatch and maintenance due to ACARS messages indicating activation of the magnetic chip detector. A high power engine run is now going to commence at Iqaluit, then the aircraft is estimated to position back to Zurich.

wiggy

8th Feb 2017, 15:01

...all that Boeing(don't know about AB but suspect the same policy) would pay for was the cost associated with repair and not anything else such as PAX costs ferrying crews A/C or equipment etc.

Thanks for the info matkat.

ExXB

8th Feb 2017, 15:47

It may also depend on how anxious GE/Boeing are for LX's business. IIRC the recently purchased 777s are their first Boeings.

barit1

8th Feb 2017, 17:42

Not sure of all the implicatios here, but field on-wing repair of this GE90 night have been feasible given one or two bits of data.

The loss of gearbox drive power might have been diagnosed with a simple cranking check; the N2 sensor on the mainshaft, fwd compressor bearing area would show no response to gearbox rotation. No mechanical connection. It's either the angle gearbox, or the input or output shafting.

I've done this in the test cell, but not on-wing, and certainly not in the Arctic!

DaveReidUK

8th Feb 2017, 18:23

It may also depend on how anxious GE/Boeing are for LX's business. IIRC the recently purchased 777s are their first Boeings.

Indeed so. Though of course predecessor Swissair flew B742s and B743s for many years.

I've done this in the test cell, but not on-wing, and certainly not in the Arctic!

And hopefully not following a magnetic chip detector warning.

EDLB

8th Feb 2017, 18:29

With metal chips in the oil, as avherald mentioned, it is unlikely that Swiss or the engine manufacturer would risk an on site repair of parts of the engine.
The engine swap has far less risk, compared to a possible seizure if you fly out an engine with metal chip remains in the oil.

barit1

8th Feb 2017, 21:23

Oops! That was a data bit I had missed in the ~180 prior responses. :eek:

rotornut

8th Feb 2017, 23:15

Antonov in Iqaluit - North - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/antonov-in-iqaluit-1.3971373)

tdracer

9th Feb 2017, 00:20

...and so tdracer on page 3 of this thread has the winning answer:
Hey, even the blind hog finds the occasional acorn :}

Actually, it's nice to know that I learned something during those 39+ years I spent working this :mad:. :ok:

Yea barit1, there have been a number of "infant mortality" failures of engines fresh out of overhaul due to contamination left in the oil system. As I posted a few pages back, it's really important to make sure the oil system is completely flushed out and clear before returning an engine to service.

WingNut60

9th Feb 2017, 00:33

If you've ever stripped a component that had already been flushed only to find a little pile of metallic crud wedged up next to an internal gusset you'd be very reluctant to bet your low-hours engine on flushing being as effective as it needs to be.
And a lot of metal can be circulating and damage caused before a chip detector will throw up an alarm.

luchtzak

9th Feb 2017, 00:39

Just took off heading Zurich

http://www.luchtzak.be/airlines/swiss/repaired-swiss-boeing-777-heading-back-zurich/

Airbubba

9th Feb 2017, 01:17

Also, now that I look at it, Frobay may be far enough north that you could get to ZRH on a Blue Spruce routing without ETOPS if needed.

Looks like they ended up with a random route north of the tracks, crossing at FL340:

YFB DUTUM MUSVA CLAVY 6300N/05000W 6200N/04000W 6100N/03000W 6000N/02000W ERAKA ETSOM TOPPA REMBA SUTAL UN852 GTQ UT27 BLM

From: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWR5177/history/20170208/2300Z/CYFB/LSZH

ilvaporista

9th Feb 2017, 06:40

Looks now to be back at base where I hope the guys and girls who handled this challenge are being recognised for their achievements. Great teamwork all round and you deserve your rest after this.

DaveReidUK

9th Feb 2017, 06:56

Just took off heading Zurich

Never underestimate a determined engineering team. :O

If the aircraft isn't flying again by midweek at the latest, I'll be amazed.

billysmart

9th Feb 2017, 07:35

...and so tdracer on page 3 of this thread has the winning answer:
I know a few people that post here often, they knew the reason and had the photos and simply chose not to write it here along with other information.. there is a point a few posts above that's totally incorrect but I won't be correcting it ;)

BluSdUp

11th Feb 2017, 12:12

I must say I am impressed with the recovery of the 777.
I am assuming this would have been the exact same outcome if it was more southern based airline. ( Not!)
Well here is the way to do it.
Make a study and a guide from this, or phone Swiss and the Antonov crew.

On another note, how much is Narsasuaq used as enroute alternate/ emg field and how realistic is this. Anyone?

birmingham

11th Feb 2017, 13:18

Sure this link must be somewhere on the thread but couldn't find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0IRprnobs

Yaw String

11th Feb 2017, 13:21

As a side note,to anyone intimating not landing at the nearest (geographically)suitable airfield.
I know of at least one modern,heavy twin jet whose surviving engine was also found to be damaged,in a similar way to the one that gave up!
Food for thought...

pax britanica

11th Feb 2017, 13:44

Birmingham
thnaks for posting the An124 landing video, that does look likethe plane for all seasons doesn't it-all those mainwheels and anhedral wings looks absolutely made for the job which I suppose it sort of was back in the USSR days.

twochai

11th Feb 2017, 13:54

how much is Narsasuaq used as enroute alternate/ emg field and how realistic is this. Anyone?

Speaking from the experience of multiple landings at Narssarssuaq (BGBW) I would not recommend its use as a diversion for a heavy jet except in the most dire circumstances. Located at the bottom of a glacier, rugged topography surrounding and with the fjord open to the ocean, the weather is just too unpredictable. And, don't even talk about the turbulence associated with surface winds over 20 knots.

DaveReidUK

11th Feb 2017, 14:08

I must say I am impressed with the recovery of the 777.
I am assuming this would have been the exact same outcome if it was more southern based airline. ( Not!)
Well here is the way to do it.
Make a study and a guide from this, or phone Swiss and the Antonov crew.

I'm glad you stopped short of saying that it all went like clockwork ...

ATC Watcher

11th Feb 2017, 14:28

how much is Narsasuaq used as enroute alternate/ emg field and how realistic is this. Anyone?

Was there end of 90's and eary 2000s a few times . Concur with what twochai said.
Plus runway only usable one way for most jets ( take off is opposite direction as landing ) with tailwind limitations an issue for some types. Same problems for Pax : no stairs ( back then) and accommodation limited to 40-50 pax max.
For info Narsasuaq total population is around 100.

barry lloyd

11th Feb 2017, 14:49

Narsarsuaq is even more difficult since they took the sunken trawler away...:)

Chris2303

11th Feb 2017, 18:15

Speaking from the experience of multiple landings at Narssarssuaq (BGBW) I would not recommend its use as a diversion for a heavy jet except in the most dire circumstances. Located at the bottom of a glacier, rugged topography surrounding and with the fjord open to the ocean, the weather is just too unpredictable. And, don't even talk about the turbulence associated with surface winds over 20 knots.

That was the place that Earnest K Gann went in to with a C54. I remember the bit about a trawler and that he called the place Bluie West One.

I don't think he was overly impressed with the approach up a winding fjord which was effectively a dead end. I think that the trawler marked decision point.

Chris2303

11th Feb 2017, 18:21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYnJzHHckM

avionimc

11th Feb 2017, 18:25

Does anyone know what happened to the defective engine? Back in Switzerland? Or to GE in the States? Or still at CYFB?

Rwy in Sight

11th Feb 2017, 20:06

Also how the crew who flew the aircraft back to Zurich got there? Were they an ordinary crew or test pilots of Swiss.

Yaw String, your point is food for thought

wiggy

11th Feb 2017, 20:25

Fair question..don't know how Swiss work but from what I've seen over the years unless there's a compelling reason for a crew change (contract, industrial agreements, impingement on leave, open ended delay) often as not the crew that broke it get to sit it out and fly the aircraft home when it is fixed.

Not sure why the thoughts about test pilot requirements, (unless something really odd went on or it's company policy.). .the post engine test requirement was discussed earlier in the thread.

WingNut60

11th Feb 2017, 22:23

Yaw String, your point is food for thought
Yes, it is food for thought.
Now try looking at that example from the perspective of "no alternate available for 180 minutes".
I have never questioned the efficacy of landing at nearest suitable. What sends shivers up my spine is the thought that the nearest suitable may be three hours away over a very inhospitable ocean, mountains or ice.

davidjpowell

11th Feb 2017, 22:50

The passenger who flew out did say that the crew went with them... Not sure whether this included the flight deck crew or not.

Airbubba

11th Feb 2017, 23:55

Does anyone know what happened to the defective engine? Back in Switzerland? Or to GE in the States? Or still at CYFB?

Looks like the Ant went to East Midlands UK, not sure if it had the engine onboard:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ur-82007#c6831b1

gordon field

12th Feb 2017, 12:34

Iqaluit’s airport wrapped up a remarkable—and busy—week Feb. 9, starting with the emergency landing of a jet en route to Los Angeles and ending with the day-long stop of Government of Canada aircraft carrying the Prime Minister and his entourage to Iqaluit.

The week kicked off with the Feb. 1 emergency landing of a Swiss International Air Lines Boeing 777-300 on one engine, followed by the Feb. 2 departure of its 200-plus passengers and crew on a Swiss International Air Bus rescue flight.

Then, Feb. 4 brought the landing of the Antonov 124, carrying the new $24-million engine for the Swiss International jet, with huge aircraft’s arrival just before sunset witnessed by many of Iqaluit’s keen plane-spotting 7,740 residents.

The activity put Iqaluit’s airport on the map, as a team of engineers worked 24-7 in frigid temperatures to take off the faulty engine and put on the new one.

Finally the Swiss International flight left Feb. 8 for Zurich—followed by the departure of the Antonov late in the evening for the U.K.

This operation would have been expensive and a good job that they could tow the 777 off the runway before The 11:31 p.m. departure of the hulking Antonov, a four-engine aircraft owned by the Antonov Co., a Ukrainian aircraft manufacturing and services company, put an end to the repair saga of the Swiss jet.

Stefan Vasic, a corporate communications manager at Swiss International, said the cost of the entire operation was “under evaluation and subject to further calculations.”

Uplinker

12th Feb 2017, 13:25

@ ATC watcher
"Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?"

minus 30C, vinds gusting 25 Kts, so chilling factor around -40C , you call this a " great fun" challenge ?
Super cold metal = another challenge is to unscrew fastened bolts torqued at or near standard temp I would say.

No. RTFQ - I asked if it was - the clues to that are the word 'Is' at the beginning of the sentence and the question mark at the end :ok:

twochai

12th Feb 2017, 16:48

Looks like the Ant went to East Midlands UK,

Probably headed for GE's MRO shop in Wales?

Eutychus

12th Feb 2017, 21:33

The passenger who flew out did say that the crew went with them... Not sure whether this included the flight deck crew or not.
The interview with the captain in the Swiss news broadcast doesn't look like it was filmed in the Arctic...

WingNut60

12th Feb 2017, 23:10

Super cold metal = another challenge is to unscrew fastened bolts torqued at or near standard temp I would say.
Sorry to be pedantic, because you have a good point.
It's just that you seem to have it around the wrong way; or so I think!

The difference in the coefficient of linear expansion for steel fasteners versus aluminium / magnesium alloy components probably means that removing bolts could actually be a little easier than at "normal" temperatures. Though there may be some "clamping" effect of aluminium alloy onto threaded fasteners.

However the inverse applies for tightening. And, at such low temperatures, you will also be entering the realm of ductile-brittle transition for some steel alloys. It is probably not so much of a problem for aluminium alloy under compression but fasteners under tension may well be affected, depending on the steel alloy used. Probably not a problem at all for any titanium alloys used.

Correct tightening values for fasteners at such low temperatures would (or should) certainly have been a consideration for this exercise.
I'm guessing that a re-torque later with everything at more normal temperatures would be on the cards.

Ian Corrigible

23rd Feb 2017, 16:07

This press release from Antonov answers a couple of the questions asked earlier in the thread: Antonov Airlines transports world's most powerful turbofan engine to grounded aircraft in Canadian Arctic (http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/12308350/antonov-airlines-transports-worlds-most-powerful-turbofan-engine-to-grounded-aircraft-in-canadian-arctic)

JammedStab

24th Feb 2017, 01:05

HB-JND, a Boeing 777-300 aircraft operated by Swiss International Air Lines, was conducting flight SWR40 from Zürich-Kloten, Switzerland (LSZH) to Los Angeles Intl, CA (KLAX). During cruise flight approximately 288 nautical miles North West of Iqaluit, NU (CYFB), the flight crew declared a Pan Pan due to the left engine (GE90-115B) shut down and requested a diversion to CYFB where it landed without further event at 2003Z with ARFF on standby.

After landing, the aircraft got trapped in the turn around bay of the threshold of Runway 16. The runway was closed by NOTAM until the aircraft was towed at 2110Z.

billysmart

27th Feb 2017, 06:40

Sorry to be pedantic, because you have a good point.
It's just that you seem to have it around the wrong way; or so I think!

The difference in the coefficient of linear expansion for steel fasteners versus aluminium / magnesium alloy components probably means that removing bolts could actually be a little easier than at "normal" temperatures. Though there may be some "clamping" effect of aluminium alloy onto threaded fasteners.

However the inverse applies for tightening. And, at such low temperatures, you will also be entering the realm of ductile-brittle transition for some steel alloys. It is probably not so much of a problem for aluminium alloy under compression but fasteners under tension may well be affected, depending on the steel alloy used. Probably not a problem at all for any titanium alloys used.

Correct tightening values for fasteners at such low temperatures would (or should) certainly have been a consideration for this exercise.
I'm guessing that a re-torque later with everything at more normal temperatures would be on the cards.

Retorque. .. nope, that isn't happening.

WingNut60

28th Feb 2017, 00:17

Just asking ... you seem to suggest that you know emphatically that this is not happening - as compared to just thinking that it probably won't happen.
If so, can you offer an opinion about why a re-torque is not considered necessary, in this case?

Not a problem, re-torque or not, provided the low temperatures were taken into account and the installation procedures adjusted, if necessary.
And, every chance that it was not even necessary. But it should have been a consideration.

In any case, any necessity for re-torque would only apply to fasteners used during the engine change and installed at non-standard temperatures.
Other considerations would be any "stretch bolts or necked fasteners" that are normally torqued to or even exceeding yield, though these are usually single-use fasteners anyway.