Qantas latest engine out
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in a house
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cargo744... think it is that funny Red coloured one if that is the case.
Removing all of the lube and then re-applying it once apparently caused high vibes on 3 engines
Removing all of the lube and then re-applying it once apparently caused high vibes on 3 engines
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This story - It's not going to go away so quickly this time
Qantas dismissed claims that the engine had exploded as incorrect.
But Mark Sowerby, a passenger on QF64, said he saw flames shoot from the rear of one of the plane's engines for several seconds before they were extinguished.
''Contrary to the Qantas spin on events, the number three engine near the exit row I was seated in blew up,'' the Brisbane businessman said yesterday.
Mr Sowerby said that at a hotel in Johannesburg he witnessed staff being told not to use the word ''explosion''. my bold
Read more: Qantas denies engine exploded
But Mark Sowerby, a passenger on QF64, said he saw flames shoot from the rear of one of the plane's engines for several seconds before they were extinguished.
''Contrary to the Qantas spin on events, the number three engine near the exit row I was seated in blew up,'' the Brisbane businessman said yesterday.
Mr Sowerby said that at a hotel in Johannesburg he witnessed staff being told not to use the word ''explosion''. my bold
Read more: Qantas denies engine exploded
whether it exploded or not, I found this quote interesting from another thread,
I hear the engine that failed on the weekend with the Sprinboks onboard was over it's maximum number of allowable cycles before maintenance and that very special mod it required. Anyone care to ring 3AW tomorrow with a rumour that JL required an engine change after 420 cycles however it blew up one hour out of J'Burg on cycle number 431?
by Steve P, ALAEA Fed Sec
spin time Ooh W?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While ever this problem continues to exist Qantas should use only 747-400ERs or 747s with modified engine to fly routes like SYD-JNB and SYD-EZE. It's not worth the risk of something going wrong 5 hours from land...
The P&W engines on the B747 and B767 were not interchangeable
RB211's are interchangeable between the 747 & 767. Three mechanical items, data plate and rating plug. Has to be tested to 'H' standard at the build stage which they mostly are.
I guess it is this confusion which results in people not counting these failures into the EDTO statistics. Both are a RB211-524 (G for B747 and H for 767).
Perhaps suffice to say, it all relates to demise of the Sydney Engine Overhaul facility and what they could do before and what they seemingly cannot do now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, VH-OGV is the only 767 with Fadec, so that engine is swapped with the GE 744's that are GE powered, all the other 767's are PMC
As for RR, they are having IFSD all around the world. We have seen the A380, B744, B717 all RR powered. One would and should be asking what is happening at RR. It is unfortunate that Qantas aircraft are in the media with these shutdowns, however they all have managed to land safely. As for what to do, it is a mere massive task to pull these engines and send them off. I personally would be upping my boroscope inspections and anything that is getting close to drop the engine. I know RR are pretty liberal in there allowances and not only myself but my fellow engineers have raised our eyebrows in some of their decisions.
As for Swapping the 767 and 744 engines around, are they not different mod status ie G,GT,GH thus not allowing them to be swapped between the fleet?
As for RR, they are having IFSD all around the world. We have seen the A380, B744, B717 all RR powered. One would and should be asking what is happening at RR. It is unfortunate that Qantas aircraft are in the media with these shutdowns, however they all have managed to land safely. As for what to do, it is a mere massive task to pull these engines and send them off. I personally would be upping my boroscope inspections and anything that is getting close to drop the engine. I know RR are pretty liberal in there allowances and not only myself but my fellow engineers have raised our eyebrows in some of their decisions.
As for Swapping the 767 and 744 engines around, are they not different mod status ie G,GT,GH thus not allowing them to be swapped between the fleet?
Geoffry Thomas is on to it in ATW. No mention of them shutting down their own engine overhaul shop though.
Qantas to speed up RB211 engine modifications on 747 fleet | ATWOnline
Qantas to speed up RB211 engine modifications on 747 fleet
Qantas will fast-track modifications of Rolls-Royce RB211 engines powering its Boeing 747-400 fleet to stem failures caused by cracked high-pressure compressor blades, of which the airline has suffered three this year and two late last year (ATW Daily News, Nov. 8, 2010).
The engine manufacturer has acknowledged the problem, caused by a distortion of the compressor case resulting in the tips of fan blades cracking and disintegrating.
Rolls issued a service bulletin regarding RB211 HPC blades in 2006 but in 2009 opted to redesign the blades. QF has modified 25% of its fleet and is also looking at altering the way the carrier operates its 747s as other airlines do not have the same failure rate. QF's RB211 failure rate is three times the industry average.
Qantas to speed up RB211 engine modifications on 747 fleet | ATWOnline
Qantas to speed up RB211 engine modifications on 747 fleet
Qantas will fast-track modifications of Rolls-Royce RB211 engines powering its Boeing 747-400 fleet to stem failures caused by cracked high-pressure compressor blades, of which the airline has suffered three this year and two late last year (ATW Daily News, Nov. 8, 2010).
The engine manufacturer has acknowledged the problem, caused by a distortion of the compressor case resulting in the tips of fan blades cracking and disintegrating.
Rolls issued a service bulletin regarding RB211 HPC blades in 2006 but in 2009 opted to redesign the blades. QF has modified 25% of its fleet and is also looking at altering the way the carrier operates its 747s as other airlines do not have the same failure rate. QF's RB211 failure rate is three times the industry average.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet engine explosion can ruin your day - The aftermath
The aftermath,
Jet engine explosion can ruin your day
The consequences of the management decision to run down the engineering division at Q. The writer coped it both ways on her dream trip to Europe. Says it all really.
Jet engine explosion can ruin your day
HECKLER
Illustration: Dinalie Dabarera
Jet engine explosion can ruin your day
I TELL you what makes my blood boil - it's when the engine explodes after take-off.
There you are on the trip of a lifetime to Europe, in business class (thanks to frequent flyer points), although actually securing a business-class seat with points is a heckle all of its own. So having beaten that challenge, it was with a sense of smug satisfaction that I reclined my seat, a gin and tonic in hand, as we took off from Bangkok for the final leg to London.
The explosion that rocked the plane was followed by a deathly silence.
Advertisement: Story continues below
I'm not a nervous flyer, but I became a little worried at that point. The captain announced that we had ''engine trouble''. (A distinct advantage of business class is you can't actually see the fireball and flames). We then had to fly to a zone to dump all the fuel before landing. This takes an hour. The captain assured us he had done this before on a simulator. He also assured us the emergency services vehicles we would see along the runway were standard procedure. Of course they were.
Once landed, we had to wait a further hour and a half on the runway while Qantas negotiated immigration for a plane full of passengers. But don't expect this to make any difference. The official asked what my intended address was in Thailand, and, as I looked at him blankly, would not allow me in.
The airport was empty save for a straggly queue of weary refugees, all with no address. So, none of us were allowed through.
Eventually, some official waived the condition and we collected our bags and were shipped off to a hotel arriving, exhausted, just before dawn.
No new aeroplane was flown in. Instead we were bumped onto other flights. We were kindly offered a flight to Tokyo. I pointed out that we were actually hoping to go to London.
Eventually, we agreed to go economy so as to arrive in less than three days.
No air miles were refunded. No concessions were made. All dreams of business-class luxury, sleep and gin and tonics receded. Connecting flights were missed. The trip of a lifetime was fast becoming a nightmare.
But not to worry, we had a lovely long holiday before we had to contemplate the flight home.
Except you won't believe what happened on the way home. The plane broke down, in Hong Kong this time. Another trip back and forth through immigration. Another night in a hotel. Another great experience with the ''Spirit of Australia''.
Clare Taylor
Illustration: Dinalie Dabarera Jet engine explosion can ruin your day
I TELL you what makes my blood boil - it's when the engine explodes after take-off.
There you are on the trip of a lifetime to Europe, in business class (thanks to frequent flyer points), although actually securing a business-class seat with points is a heckle all of its own. So having beaten that challenge, it was with a sense of smug satisfaction that I reclined my seat, a gin and tonic in hand, as we took off from Bangkok for the final leg to London.
The explosion that rocked the plane was followed by a deathly silence.
Advertisement: Story continues below
I'm not a nervous flyer, but I became a little worried at that point. The captain announced that we had ''engine trouble''. (A distinct advantage of business class is you can't actually see the fireball and flames). We then had to fly to a zone to dump all the fuel before landing. This takes an hour. The captain assured us he had done this before on a simulator. He also assured us the emergency services vehicles we would see along the runway were standard procedure. Of course they were.
Once landed, we had to wait a further hour and a half on the runway while Qantas negotiated immigration for a plane full of passengers. But don't expect this to make any difference. The official asked what my intended address was in Thailand, and, as I looked at him blankly, would not allow me in.
The airport was empty save for a straggly queue of weary refugees, all with no address. So, none of us were allowed through.
Eventually, some official waived the condition and we collected our bags and were shipped off to a hotel arriving, exhausted, just before dawn.
No new aeroplane was flown in. Instead we were bumped onto other flights. We were kindly offered a flight to Tokyo. I pointed out that we were actually hoping to go to London.
Eventually, we agreed to go economy so as to arrive in less than three days.
No air miles were refunded. No concessions were made. All dreams of business-class luxury, sleep and gin and tonics receded. Connecting flights were missed. The trip of a lifetime was fast becoming a nightmare.
But not to worry, we had a lovely long holiday before we had to contemplate the flight home.
Except you won't believe what happened on the way home. The plane broke down, in Hong Kong this time. Another trip back and forth through immigration. Another night in a hotel. Another great experience with the ''Spirit of Australia''.
Clare Taylor
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: AU
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While ever this problem continues to exist Qantas should use only 747-400ERs or 747s with modified engine to fly routes like SYD-JNB and SYD-EZE. It's not worth the risk of something going wrong 5 hours from land...
Just for the record, the reason only the GE engined 400ERs go to Buenos Aires has nothing to do with engine reliability.
Anyway, I have no qualms being in any 747 a long way from the Nearest Suitable [and do so every time I go to work]. For one thing, you still have three engines after a failure, a much safer situation than in the 777 many of you idolise. [Please don't get me wrong. I like the 777 too - just not down near McMurdo Sound in the middle of winter, 2400 miles from the nearest place to land, on one engine].
Also, all the failures in this sequence that I know of, and I think I know of them all, have been fairly soon after takeoff thrust has been reduced in the climb. It seems when a blade has had enough and breaks, it is always then and not at some random point in the cruise, miles from anywhere.
Not like another RR211 sequence of failures I can think of years ago that occurred randomly in cruise, climb, descent and at least one in THAT sequence on taxy at idle thrust.
Anyway, I have no qualms being in any 747 a long way from the Nearest Suitable [and do so every time I go to work]. For one thing, you still have three engines after a failure, a much safer situation than in the 777 many of you idolise. [Please don't get me wrong. I like the 777 too - just not down near McMurdo Sound in the middle of winter, 2400 miles from the nearest place to land, on one engine].
Also, all the failures in this sequence that I know of, and I think I know of them all, have been fairly soon after takeoff thrust has been reduced in the climb. It seems when a blade has had enough and breaks, it is always then and not at some random point in the cruise, miles from anywhere.
Not like another RR211 sequence of failures I can think of years ago that occurred randomly in cruise, climb, descent and at least one in THAT sequence on taxy at idle thrust.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 4th Aug 2011 at 10:35.
G'day Gidday..
A small point of order.
While I don't know the exact 777 EROPS rules, I think you'll find that 180minutes would keep the aircraft always within 1200-1300 miles of an adequate airport, and even 215 minutes would keep it within 1600 miles.
In short, nothing should place a twin-engined jet 2400 miles from an airport.
While I don't know the exact 777 EROPS rules, I think you'll find that 180minutes would keep the aircraft always within 1200-1300 miles of an adequate airport, and even 215 minutes would keep it within 1600 miles.
In short, nothing should place a twin-engined jet 2400 miles from an airport.
Yes Jetsbest, technical point to you - you are quite correct that a 777 would not be down in Antarctica due to EROPs limitations [Ask V about that on their short lived MEL-JNB service].
This is going to be quite a problem in the future. What is going to replace the 747-400? A380? [Too big]. A340-500 [probably too inefficient] 747-800 [maybe, if you want to stay with essentially 45 year old technology].
There isn't an easy answer. Close down all those long over water remote routes is one option.
Anyway, back to engine failures -
As the Old Guys in Qantas used to say [and some of us still do]:
"Why do I stick to flying four engined aircraft?
Because Boeing doesn't make five engined aircraft!"
[OK, don't get technical on me. We are not likely to see any B52s in airline colours].
Of course, flying four rather than two, you've automatically doubled your chance of having an engine failure, all other things being equal.
Point of order Frangatang: BA and CX have both had failures of this type - just not as many. This fact is currently very much exercising the minds of the Second Smartest Guys in the Room [the Smartest Guys in the Room being fully occupied worrying about you Ppruner's, apparently].
This is going to be quite a problem in the future. What is going to replace the 747-400? A380? [Too big]. A340-500 [probably too inefficient] 747-800 [maybe, if you want to stay with essentially 45 year old technology].
There isn't an easy answer. Close down all those long over water remote routes is one option.
Anyway, back to engine failures -
As the Old Guys in Qantas used to say [and some of us still do]:
"Why do I stick to flying four engined aircraft?
Because Boeing doesn't make five engined aircraft!"
[OK, don't get technical on me. We are not likely to see any B52s in airline colours].
Of course, flying four rather than two, you've automatically doubled your chance of having an engine failure, all other things being equal.
Point of order Frangatang: BA and CX have both had failures of this type - just not as many. This fact is currently very much exercising the minds of the Second Smartest Guys in the Room [the Smartest Guys in the Room being fully occupied worrying about you Ppruner's, apparently].
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 5th Aug 2011 at 14:00.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG.the reason ETOPS changed to EDTO is that it is no longer about engine reliability (unless your talking Qantas Rollers)and all about cargo fire suppression.There is no longer a point of difference between twin/triple/four from the point off view of the international overseeing body.
Five-engined aircraft
Capt Gidday said
If I remember correctly, this was originally attributed to a former Chairman of Rolls Royce - except he said 'they' instead of 'Boeing'.
Coming from the maker of the said engines added a certain piquancy to the remark
"Why do I stick to flying four engined aircraft?
Because Boeing doesn't make five engined aircraft!"
Because Boeing doesn't make five engined aircraft!"
Coming from the maker of the said engines added a certain piquancy to the remark
There is no longer a point of difference between twin/triple/four from the point off view of the international overseeing body.
Operators of aeroplanes with more than two engines operating on EDTO routes, in passenger carrying
operations must comply with the operational and process requirements specified in the EDTO rules in CAO 82.0 from the 1st July 2015.
operations must comply with the operational and process requirements specified in the EDTO rules in CAO 82.0 from the 1st July 2015.
