PDA

View Full Version : N7771


cats_five
19th Sep 2018, 22:31
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/18/first_boeing777_museum_b_hnl_n7771/

Airbubba
20th Sep 2018, 02:46
The 777 was Boeing's answer to Airbus's A300 jets, which were the first long-ranged, wide bodied twin-engined aircraft with large passenger capacities.

Who knew? ;)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/18/first_boeing777_museum_b_hnl_n7771/

4runner
20th Sep 2018, 05:32
The A300 wasnít a long range aircraft initially. There was no such thing as ETOPS in the 60ís-early 90ís. It was designed to be a short to medium range aircraft for inter Europe flying. It became a medium to longish range aircraft later on. Itís also the only Airbus that Boeing pilots will say good things about.

aeromech3
20th Sep 2018, 06:45
4 runner:-Try 1980's for ETOPS during which I was part of a team to introduce B767ER's on an Australian route that required ETOPS procedures/rules; some in the airline management at the time thought that as it was an ER it could just start the service, sorry, wrong again!

LeadSled
20th Sep 2018, 09:55
4 runner:-Try 1980's for ETOPS during which I was part of a team to introduce B767ER's on an Australian route that required ETOPS procedures/rules; some in the airline management at the time thought that as it was an ER it could just start the service, sorry, wrong again!
Aeromech3,
I don't know who you might be referring to, but it certainly wasn't Flight Operations or Engineering at QF.
Indeed, at the time, there were no hard and fast rules for EROPS/ETOPS/EDTO in Australia, ( and a lot of resistance elsewhere, particularly JAA/UK CAA, with FAA sitting on the fence, ALPA was hugely anti) and the negotiated answers all worked out rather well, not something that would happen with the present CASA AU. Indeed, CASA AU risk aversion is now so extreme, I doubt such a project would get off the ground in AU, unless it was already done somewhere else.
Tootle pip!!

mustafagander
20th Sep 2018, 11:05
I think, Leadie, that there was the "90 minute rule" in play. I was part of the team investigation the ramifications of this 90 minute rule for our QF ops. Very interesting!! The Johnson Island diversion scenario was an "interesting" hypothetical. Manus Island and Nadzab were equally "interesting".

Airbubba
20th Sep 2018, 15:26
From a 1998 Airbus publication:

ETOPS milestones

Airbus operators have been operating their A300 twinjet aircraft across the North Atlantic, the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean under the 90-minute ICAO rule since 1976. However, ETOPS officially began in 1985 with the newly issued ETOPS criteria.

In 1985, the first ETOPS operations (90 minutes) were made in February by TWA with a 767 and in June by Singapore Airlines with an A310.

In April 1986, Pan Am was the first to inaugurate transatlantic revenue service with A310-200 and A310-300 aircraft. In less than five years, more than 20 operators joined the two pioneers in Airbus ETOPS operations.

http://www.737ng.co.uk/AIRBUS%20ETOPS%20Guide.pdf

I would say the 767, not the 777, was the answer to the A300.

er340790
20th Sep 2018, 18:03
a grand total of 51,416 hours gracing the skies.

I'm not sure if that particular airframe has any special issues, but given that Boeing's P.R. blurb these days that airframe life is practically limitless (with proper maintenance), does 24 years and 51+k hours seem a little 'light'? :confused:

tdracer
20th Sep 2018, 18:35
I'm not sure if that particular airframe has any special issues, but given that Boeing's P.R. blurb these days that airframe life is practically limitless (with proper maintenance), does 24 years and 51+k hours seem a little 'light'? :confused:

Reportedly when WA001 was built, they didn't assemble the wing properly - some wing spars were installed backwards (remember, this was the very first 777 wing built). According to the report at the time, it didn't affect the ultimate limit loads of the wing, but it did affect the load distribution and hence the fatigue life. At the time it was assumed this meant Boeing would never sell WA001 and would just hang on to it for flying test bed use.
I'd left the 777 by the time they sold WA001 to Cathay, but I assume they did enough analysis to determine it could be used for commercial service with appropriate fatigue life restrictions.

Airbubba, the original 767 was more comparable to the A310 than the A300 - the 767 and A310 used pretty much the same engines (the later re-engine of the 767 went up against the A300-600).

ETOPS wise, the 777 was the first aircraft designed from the ground up for ETOPS, and was the first aircraft to have ETOPS "out of the box" (i.e. at entry into service). To get ETOPS out of the box, we pretty much had to make it up as we went since it had never done been before. A lot of the things implemented for early ETOPS on the 777 are now SOP for new twin engine aircraft (or significantly modified - think NEO or MAX).

LeadSled
21st Sep 2018, 05:26
I think, Leadie, that there was the "90 minute rule" in play. I was part of the team investigation the ramifications of this 90 minute rule for our QF ops. Very interesting!! The Johnson Island diversion scenario was an "interesting" hypothetical. Manus Island and Nadzab were equally "interesting".

Add Majuro, Biak and Zamboanga.
With the 90 minutes, the latter became quite important, and Qantas actually paid for and installed a backup power supply for the airport lights there, I often wondered if they would have worked, had we needed them. Or in whose backyard the backup power could be found.

I don't think any of us would have gone to Nadzab at night, instead of Moresby, unless it was a fire.

Johnson Island, very highly mega ultra top secret, we used to (only) half jokingly say that if we ever had to go there , they would have to shoot us. We were not supposed to know it was where all the US chemical weapons were dumped, for ultimate destruction. That was classified info. in Australia, and carefully hidden from the public in the pages of AW&ST in the US.

We actually routed a B767-238 via Majuro once, PR/Goodwill as much as anything.

In many respects Air New Zealand and Qantas "pioneered" twin ER operations, UK CAA/JAA were anti, FAA sat on the fence ( with ridiculous multiple failure planning requirements -- that no 3/4 holer could meet) , European and US pilot unions were opposed (as was AFAP, but not AIPA) Airbus had the "new" A340 on the market, it was some years before they certified an ER version of the A310.

If my memory serves me correctly, three years after the first ER operations commenced, over 80% of ER sectors were QF and ANZ around the Pacific/SEA.

With the European concept of "long range" (Paris-Cairo "non-stop"), the A300 could never be called long range, was there ever an ER version certified??

As I said, in a previous post, such a project put to CASA in the present day would never get off the ground.

Tootle pip!!

krismiler
21st Sep 2018, 05:56
The A300-B4 was a conventional aircraft with steam driven gauges and a flight engineer, the later A300-600 had early generation EFIS similar to the B733 and did away with the flight engineer.

The first ETOPS regulations exempted aircraft with 4 engines or 3 turbine engines and date back to the Constellation and Douglas DC4/6 era. The Tristar and DC10 were able to comply, long range twins were a few years away. The early 1980s saw the B767/757 with transatlantic capability and the previous decades old regulations were bought into the modern age to cover this class of aircraft.

Now big twins such as the B777 routinely fly over the remotest parts of the world, hours from any suitable diversion and narrow bodies easily manage 120/180 mins, we’ve come a long way.

LeadSled
21st Sep 2018, 07:00
r A300-600 .
The first ETOPS regulations exempted aircraft with 4 engines or 3 turbine engines and date back to the Constellation and Douglas DC4/6 era. The Tristar and DC10 were able to comply, long range twins were a few years away. The early 1980s saw the B767/757 with transatlantic capability and the previous decades old regulations were bought into the modern age to cover this class of aircraft.
Krismiller,
With respect, I think you are getting a few concepts confused.

DC-3/C-47 flew in many parts of the world for years after WWII, without the "benefit" of the 60m rules, otherwise many airline services would have been impossible.

I would suggest that the 60 minute rule, aimed, allegedly and originally at piston engine reliability, should never have applied to turbo-jet aircraft. Such is the unintended consequence of a rule written for one purpose becoming "conventional wisdom".

3/4 engine aircraft cannot, surely, be both "exempt" and "comply" from/with "regulations " that, at the time, only applied to twin engine aircraft.

It has only been years later that certain ETOPS/EROPS/EDTO requirements were applied to ALL HCPT aircraft, mostly but not only to do with hold fire suppression.

Indeed, it was fire suppression limitations (not engine related) that limited the diversion time of a number of EDTO certified aircraft. Despite the statistics, "engine failure" for too long occupied centre stage, when other threats to the aircraft, regardless of the number of engines, that were statistically serious issues.

"Back in the day" 90 minute certification was straightforward, 120 minutes took too long, and some of the steps and stages since have been protracted, but at least, in the last few years, an aircraft can have EDTO certification from Day One.

Tootle pip!!

PS: When on B767, we used to enjoy pointing out to our Jumbo mates that we had better electrical and hydraulic redundancy that a B747 Classic, and fire suppression that they didn't have, at all.

krismiler
21st Sep 2018, 10:05
The rules exempted aircraft with 4 piston engines or 3 turbine engines from having to comply with rules applicable to twins. Regulations would have been playing catch up with increased aircraft performance and range, a Super Constellation refuelling in Shannon for the Atlantic crossing had a reasonably high chance of suffering an engine failure en route and this would have necessitated a careful drawing up of regulations applying to twins with similar engines.

Regulators are normally quite conservative and the reliability of the relatively new jet engine was still unproven so it was reasonable for them to require some demonstrated in service statistics before granting any exemptions

Early twin jet performance would not allow an Atlantic crossing where as today it’s routine for the B737Max. Long haul jets of the B707/DC8 class needed 4 engines due to the relatively low power of the 1950s era power plants.

Routes routinely flown today simply didn’t exist back in the early days as there was no demand.

Other factors need to be considered for EDTO, such as passenger illness or failure of the vacuum toilet system. Even something mundane such as the galley ovens going U/S could cause problems on a 19 hour flight.