CX 777's
 

Why are the CX 777’s on the ground with no engines? Are the Rolls having the same problem as the GE’s? One can still take-off with the GE’s. Go Airbus!
Is it affecting their ETOPS?

I must say... it's has not been a good look for some time now! Taxing down to 07R and seeing a CX 777 with no engines.... you'd think that they could move it somewhere else, out of the view of the pax.

It certainly is affecting their ETOPS. Last time I checked you require 2 engines for ETOPS.

You mean like next to the other 777 with the hot end missing in the "T" bay, so they can see it when they come off 07L/25R :}

Mr. Bloggs,
You can't POSSIBLY be comparing the Boeing 777 to an Airbus....surely????!!!!
NP.:= := := :E :E :E

CX 777's are 180 min ETOPS providing they have both engines bolted on.

Something to do with the turbine blades deciding to leave the engine. I believe SQ are also suffering from this latest RR failure...CX's fascination with the RR engines must surely end soon.

BA's RR Trent 895 777s don't seem to be having any trouble! Are CX's a different version?

I understand RR said wait until they are due a check before changing the blades but as CX had had 2 failures they did theirs straight away and got all the spares they could. SQ have got some a/c AOG as have Emirates. I think American and BA have yet to start checking theirs.:D

EY just lost their ETOPS approval after 2 GE90-115 HPT failures, something for SQ and CX to look forward to.

Why would they lose their ETOPS when the very definiition of ETOPS is to allow for engine failures etc.

Doesn't sound right to me.

Because the T in ETOPS is for Twin not single.

The Messiah.

Are you for real! Go to the Wannabe's forum, it's obviously where you belong.

swh
When you say EY do you mean Emirates which are EK or Etihad which are EY?

Striker58
Are you a second officer by any chance?

CX had 1 and SQ 2 failures of LP blades according to tech. sources. Rest of info is same as I have it.

The EK failure recently is being discussed here, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248980 it was a failure of some sort on an A330 T700, CX had a fan fail on a A330 T700 back in Sept.

Here are a couple of pics from the EK thread, some BIG holes :eek:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4796/image000va2.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3654/image002fn7.jpg

Strange, may I ask what if he is?....I hope your not having a dig at the SOs now!!!!:=

Just curious if he is and how much ETOPS experience he would have as being one.

As far as I can find out EK have not lost their ETOPS approval at all. I would be very surprised if they had, just for 2 engine failures which were quite possibly not even ETOPS flights (but of course possibly they were I don't know). If it is a GE90-115 problem then all operators of them would lose ETOPS until the problem is fixed don't you think? Just to harp on it a bit more whatever ETOPS rule you are approved to (eg 180 min) lets not forget that is based on flying to the nearest suitable after the failure at single engine Vmo/Mmo not twin engine. I think a few of you may be a bit confused by the term because it is effectively Extended Single Engine OPS when you have to rely on it for real.

I know it is a rumour network but you still have to be hesitant to believe anything you read on here.

Not really, ETOPS is NOT just about the ability to fly on one engine, you can have 2 perfectly serviceable engines and not be able to fly an ETOPS sector, there are a multitude of other factors/systems that allow you to fly ETOPS, as the OP is for operations. I think it is you who is confused.:)

Not confused here at all, the original point was regarding engine failures which is what I was questioning, not whether there is an E in the MEL prior to dispatch.