Two 777 Engine diversions in 1 day
by RTIF
I dont call that contained!
Lets think about this, on a take off run 1 engine was lost and the debris impacted the other, it didnt damage it admittedley but we are talking about the begining of the run. At or about rotation speed everything has much more energy and in a situation where you have to "go" and the other unit must be able to give you 100% there is (appears to be) a risk of debris impacting and at least passing through an engine rated and running close to 90,000 lb thrust..... Can anyone see the problem here? Whatever your TOW this is a nightmare scenario.
While on the face it seems to be a standard blade out, no drama, event looking a little closer the incident seems much more serious with disasterous potential but I dont recall any regulatory authorities working through the above and asking for assurances that the second unit could not be pinged, you have to ask why
I understood that during certification it had to proved that this could not happen but it did 2 years ago.
I dont call that contained!
Lets think about this, on a take off run 1 engine was lost and the debris impacted the other, it didnt damage it admittedley but we are talking about the begining of the run. At or about rotation speed everything has much more energy and in a situation where you have to "go" and the other unit must be able to give you 100% there is (appears to be) a risk of debris impacting and at least passing through an engine rated and running close to 90,000 lb thrust..... Can anyone see the problem here? Whatever your TOW this is a nightmare scenario.
While on the face it seems to be a standard blade out, no drama, event looking a little closer the incident seems much more serious with disasterous potential but I dont recall any regulatory authorities working through the above and asking for assurances that the second unit could not be pinged, you have to ask why
I understood that during certification it had to proved that this could not happen but it did 2 years ago.
First off the regulations specifiy a level of containmnet and not complete containment of every little bit each and every time. Therefoe a further level of robustness is expected at the aircraft design level most of the time. Thus we have the relatively good history, including the Trent event in OZ land.
In the structural part of the safety equations we are doing quite well compared to all other causes (weather, operation, human mistakes etc.)
The arguments about ETOPS are now long in tooth and while everybody expects a splash someday, the odds are it will be a 4 engine machine if its engine related and not a twin.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets try to keep to facts in evidence and our dreams and imaginations out of safety assessments.
~~~~Snip~~~~
The arguments about ETOPS are now long in tooth and while everybody expects a splash someday, the odds are it will be a 4 engine machine if its engine related and not a twin.
~~~~Snip~~~~
The arguments about ETOPS are now long in tooth and while everybody expects a splash someday, the odds are it will be a 4 engine machine if its engine related and not a twin.
The question I was asking at the head of the topic was should we be looking closer at these failures. As I understand it all of these recent failures have been due to different causes and that from a statistical and materials point of view gives more cause for concern not less.
by RTFI
The question I was asking at the head of the topic was should we be looking closer at these failures. As I understand it all of these recent failures have been due to different causes and that from a statistical and materials point of view gives more cause for concern not less.
The question I was asking at the head of the topic was should we be looking closer at these failures. As I understand it all of these recent failures have been due to different causes and that from a statistical and materials point of view gives more cause for concern not less.
Fair question.
I would be more concerned about failures for the same cause, as that indicates a growing specific problem whose specific soulution his not working. This is under the presumption that all known specfic problems have been addressed with a specific corrective action.
OTOH, multiple scattered problems are symptomatic of general wear and tear not addressed by maintenance. And as such these problems are expected to be random and best tracked by statistics up to a critical level.
How they are to be addressed is another subject entirlely
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston/TX - USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode7:
"Old Aero Guy" is absolutely correct and you can find this in FAA AC 120-42A
The IFSD rate for a specific aircraft/engine combination is an "industry" rate as well as an "individual operator" rate... and any IFSD… see definition… will count as an event… even if you “inadvertently” shut the engine down. ETOPS is not just an aircraft/engine reliability program… but the Airline’s operational philosophy as well. Exceeding the IFSD “alert" level… say 0.02 for 180 minutes ETOPS… does not necessarily mean that you loose your ETOPS approval either, but you have to come up with a good “game plan” and convince the “authorities” you know what you are doing.
All you guys who “question” ETOPS operation should take time and read through this AC and try to understand all that is involved. I doubt any carrier will launch off across the North Pole without first study “every” available aspect of this operation… and if they don’t… well... then they are likely to “jeopardize” safety in many other areas as well…
Thought and comments…?
Dag
Old Aero Guy. Where did you get this data from?
The IFSD rate for a specific aircraft/engine combination is an "industry" rate as well as an "individual operator" rate... and any IFSD… see definition… will count as an event… even if you “inadvertently” shut the engine down. ETOPS is not just an aircraft/engine reliability program… but the Airline’s operational philosophy as well. Exceeding the IFSD “alert" level… say 0.02 for 180 minutes ETOPS… does not necessarily mean that you loose your ETOPS approval either, but you have to come up with a good “game plan” and convince the “authorities” you know what you are doing.
All you guys who “question” ETOPS operation should take time and read through this AC and try to understand all that is involved. I doubt any carrier will launch off across the North Pole without first study “every” available aspect of this operation… and if they don’t… well... then they are likely to “jeopardize” safety in many other areas as well…
Thought and comments…?
Dag
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles,CA,USA
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFI---
I assume you meant CO 777 was flying NRT-IAH, not Houston-Hobby airport (HOU).
And yes, Midway Island in the Pacific was where they went. Not too bad for a 777.
UAL still has the record---a 193-minute ETOPS diversion AKL-LAX into Kona,Hawaii last year. THAT was long!
I assume you meant CO 777 was flying NRT-IAH, not Houston-Hobby airport (HOU).
And yes, Midway Island in the Pacific was where they went. Not too bad for a 777.
UAL still has the record---a 193-minute ETOPS diversion AKL-LAX into Kona,Hawaii last year. THAT was long!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFI
you are probably right about engine failure statistics being misunderstood. There is a consulting engineering company based in Guildford who specialise in risk analysis. They spend a lot of time explaining to people that a 1 in 10 000 000 hour event has nothing to do with when an event will occurr or on the likelyhood of it happening tomorrow. In fact they can do some very interresting risk calculations that build in the real life factors that can give some very different and vey un-nerving answers.
As a general rule of low risk of occurance with high consequences if it does requires a very high 1in x figure to be quoted. I am not sure 1 in 10 000 000 as you quote is particularly reassuring or that it actually means anything!
you are probably right about engine failure statistics being misunderstood. There is a consulting engineering company based in Guildford who specialise in risk analysis. They spend a lot of time explaining to people that a 1 in 10 000 000 hour event has nothing to do with when an event will occurr or on the likelyhood of it happening tomorrow. In fact they can do some very interresting risk calculations that build in the real life factors that can give some very different and vey un-nerving answers.
As a general rule of low risk of occurance with high consequences if it does requires a very high 1in x figure to be quoted. I am not sure 1 in 10 000 000 as you quote is particularly reassuring or that it actually means anything!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been doing a bit more research into this, the actual permitted IFSD rate to retain 180min ETOPS is .02/1000 flight hours (1 in 50,000 flight hours) while crawling the web I came across this article written by Joseph P Marksteiner who is / was manager of investigations and accident prevention at GE
Also found an article on GE's website dated 22/10/03 stating that that the GE90 had passed 4,000,000 flight hours on the 777. Ill let someone else do the maths, as its 03:35 here. I did them and came up with some scary figures for permitted IFSD's without losing ETOPS status, would like someone else to try and work through them.
Permitted shutdown rate .02/1000 hours - 80,000 engine hours per month - 126 ships in service - 4 million flight hours total - 8 years service.
Sources
ARE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES TOO RIGOUROUS?
GE engines surpass 4 million flight hours powering 777
Also found an article on GE's website dated 22/10/03 stating that that the GE90 had passed 4,000,000 flight hours on the 777. Ill let someone else do the maths, as its 03:35 here. I did them and came up with some scary figures for permitted IFSD's without losing ETOPS status, would like someone else to try and work through them.
Permitted shutdown rate .02/1000 hours - 80,000 engine hours per month - 126 ships in service - 4 million flight hours total - 8 years service.
ARE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES TOO RIGOUROUS?
May some current maintenance practices and philosophies be causing more problems than they are preventing? Studies have suggested that nearly a third of in-flight shutdowns (IFSD) are caused by errors brought about by maintenance activities.
Joseph P Marksteiner, GE Aircraft Engines
As aircraft and systems age, the need for preventative and corrective maintenance activity usually increases. "Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and government regulators jointly work out detailed scheduled maintenance programs designed to avoid and catch problems before they become serious enough to jeopardise an aircraft's ability to fly safely… At each step in the process mechanics probe deeper and deeper into an aircraft taking apart more and more components for closer inspection."
This increased level of maintenance activity, while reducing risks due to equipment failure, dramatically increases the risk associated with maintenance activity itself.
May some current maintenance practices and philosophies be causing more problems than they are preventing? Studies have suggested that nearly a third of in-flight shutdowns (IFSD) are caused by errors brought about by maintenance activities.
Joseph P Marksteiner, GE Aircraft Engines
As aircraft and systems age, the need for preventative and corrective maintenance activity usually increases. "Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and government regulators jointly work out detailed scheduled maintenance programs designed to avoid and catch problems before they become serious enough to jeopardise an aircraft's ability to fly safely… At each step in the process mechanics probe deeper and deeper into an aircraft taking apart more and more components for closer inspection."
This increased level of maintenance activity, while reducing risks due to equipment failure, dramatically increases the risk associated with maintenance activity itself.
ARE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES TOO RIGOUROUS?
GE engines surpass 4 million flight hours powering 777
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one of the things the company ,I refered to in my last post, has been known to do is factor in the induced failure rate caused by human interferance, ie maintenance! This can give some really scary results.
Flying the Boeing twin twins (757/767) my company has had 2 engine shut-downs in the last 3 years. I was flying in one of those cases. Turns out Maintenance installation errors and sloppy work (and more sloppy quality control) was to blame in both cases. Perhaps more focus is needed on hangar work?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFI
It isn't a Cert. requirement that an uncontained engine failure will not cause power loss on other engines.
The standard is that an uncontained engine failure (which is already a very low probability event) only has a 1 of 20 chance of causing loss of the airplane.
My understanding of history is that this requirement evolved out the the Concorde cert. since the proximity of engine pairs made the airplane the equivalent of a twin in interms of collateral engine damage, although it was operating to the rules of a quad.
The eye-openning information you may have computed is that in 4,000,000 engine hours, 80 IFSD's would have been allowed without violating 180 min. ETOPS reliability requirements.
In fact, although .02 per 1000 engine hrs. are the standard for 180 min. ETOPS, actual fleet performance for ETOPS twins is about .005 per 1000, or about four times better than necessary.
Therefore even two IFSD's in a month don't change the statistics very much.
lomapaseo puts things in the correct context when he says the real concern would be if there were a common cause for a string of IFSD's.
PS to DJohnsen, thanks for the backup reply.
It isn't a Cert. requirement that an uncontained engine failure will not cause power loss on other engines.
The standard is that an uncontained engine failure (which is already a very low probability event) only has a 1 of 20 chance of causing loss of the airplane.
My understanding of history is that this requirement evolved out the the Concorde cert. since the proximity of engine pairs made the airplane the equivalent of a twin in interms of collateral engine damage, although it was operating to the rules of a quad.
The eye-openning information you may have computed is that in 4,000,000 engine hours, 80 IFSD's would have been allowed without violating 180 min. ETOPS reliability requirements.
In fact, although .02 per 1000 engine hrs. are the standard for 180 min. ETOPS, actual fleet performance for ETOPS twins is about .005 per 1000, or about four times better than necessary.
Therefore even two IFSD's in a month don't change the statistics very much.
lomapaseo puts things in the correct context when he says the real concern would be if there were a common cause for a string of IFSD's.
PS to DJohnsen, thanks for the backup reply.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: VAN NUYS, CA
Age: 65
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO diversion
CO operates daily 777 service between IAH and NRT . For the incident mentioned, the aircraft had a loss of oil quantity and oil pressure on one engine. The crew did an in-flight shutdown iaw their procedures, and diverted to their ETOPS alternate, PMDY, Henderson Field, Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in the Pacific Ocean.
Midway Atoll is roughly 1150 Nautical miles from Honolulu, and the airport has limited facilities for passenger handling.
Midway Atoll is roughly 1150 Nautical miles from Honolulu, and the airport has limited facilities for passenger handling.
Evertonian
Must admit, I'd never read the ATSB report, but the contained failure bit made me laugh. Having seen the EK aircraft after the event, if that is defined as uncontained, then gawd elp us!
At the time, I'd spoken to some CX engineers about the incident & they were quite concerned as to the amount of damage to the opposite engine. Is there a case for "Concorde syndrome" here?
At the time, I'd spoken to some CX engineers about the incident & they were quite concerned as to the amount of damage to the opposite engine. Is there a case for "Concorde syndrome" here?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OldAeroGuy
Thats one of the eye opening stats along with if you spread these faiuures out over a 126 ship fleet nearly 2/3rds of them (63%) could have suffered an IFSD without losing ETOPS certification and that with 80,000 hours per month we should expect up to 1.6 shutdowns per month. Which means that the 3 GE90 IFSD over the last 6-8 weeks are nothing to be concerned about!(?) At least according to the rules.
I will direct you to Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2003 ... which, states FAA computed shutdown rates for 1997/98 for all three certified powerplants implies that the GE at least was mighty close to breaching even that 0.02 /1000 rate. It is a facinating document for many reasons I recomend it. FAA quoted in context..
Thanks to all who are taking the time to contribute to this thread, 3 pages and no flames, remarkable!
Thats one of the eye opening stats along with if you spread these faiuures out over a 126 ship fleet nearly 2/3rds of them (63%) could have suffered an IFSD without losing ETOPS certification and that with 80,000 hours per month we should expect up to 1.6 shutdowns per month. Which means that the 3 GE90 IFSD over the last 6-8 weeks are nothing to be concerned about!(?) At least according to the rules.
In fact, although .02 per 1000 engine hrs. are the standard for 180 min. ETOPS, actual fleet performance for ETOPS twins is about .005 per 1000, or about four times better than necessary.
The Boeing Model 777–200 series airplane powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4077 engines was approved for ETOPS on May 30, 1995 and entered service in June 1995. By all accounts, it was a very successful new model introduction. This was followed by ETOPS approval of the 777–200 powered by General Electric GE90–77B and Rolls-Royce RB211–Trent 877–17 engines in October 1996. The inflight shutdown (IFSD) rate for all three engine types was zero for at least the first year in service. The Pratt & Whitney PW4000 reached a peak 12-month rolling average engine IFSD rate of .018/1000 hours in October 1996. The General Electric GE90 reached a peak of .021 for one month in July 1998 and the Rolls-Royce Trent reached a peak of .016 in December 1997. Although the inflight shutdown rates stayed within the allowable .02/1000 hour standard for 180-minute ETOPS, significant design problems were discovered on each engine type after ETOPS approval. During the first two years after ETOPS approval of each engine type on the Model 777 series airplanes, the FAA was concerned that the design problems being discovered may have indicated a failure of the early ETOPS process to identify those failure modes before they occurred in service. Some failure modes had the potential to result in inflight shutdowns had they occurred under different circumstances or had they not been detected during maintainence for unassociated reasons..
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental Airlines Boeing 777 emergency landing on Midway
Continental Airlines Boeing 777 emergency landing on Midway
By ROSANNA RUIZ - Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Oil spewing from one of its engines, the limping airplane managed to
find
the tiny airfield at Midway Atoll.
From her window seat aboard the twin-engine Continental Boeing 777,
college
student Dawn Smith, 23, had a view of the ailing engine as she prepared
for
the landing on Midway's Sand Island airfield early Tuesday. The landing
made
for uncomfortable moments.
"The short runway was not built for a large aircraft," Smith, who
looked
flushed with her mussy hair, said Wednesday after the plane finally
made it
to Houston a day later than expected.
The 11-hour, 40-minute flight from Japan's Narita Airport to Houston's
Bush
Intercontinental Airport was due to arrive at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday.
Continental Flight 6 had 279 passengers and 15 crew members. A
Continental
spokeswoman previously said there were 235 passengers.
No injuries were reported.
The plane made its emergency landing at 3:10 a.m. Tuesday, Midway time.
The
atoll is about 2,200 miles east of Japan and near the northwestern end
of
the Hawaiian Islands archipelago.
After repairs were made to the engine's starter, the plane left the
atoll at
2:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Smith, a Sam Houston State University history major, had studied the
island's history as a key site of a U.S. naval victory during World War
II.
She took the unexpected 24-hour layover in stride.
Still, the food rations and uncomfortable sleeping arrangements inside
a
musty theater did not make for the most stellar accommodations.
"It'll be a long time before I get on another airplane," Smith said
upon her
arrival at Bush on Wednesday. She had spent the holidays with her
sister,
who is serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk.
Smith and the others waited a few hours aboard the plane before a
ladder was
found to get them off the aircraft. The passengers were given
sandwiches,
candy bars and beverages and were allowed to tour Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The pristine beaches, lush tropical foliage and millions of birds, such
as
the Laysan albatrosses or "gooney birds," Hawaiian monk seals and other
animals led Smith to conclude that "God is so wonderful."
"It was something to see," said another passenger, Allen McMahon, a
61-year-old Montgomery resident, of the onslaught of almost 300 people
to an
island that typically is populated by about 30 people.
McMahon's wife, Judy, 57, began to cry as she embraced her husband, who
appeared a little travel-weary. "I'm just glad to have him home," she
said.
Julie King, a spokeswoman for Houston-based Continental, said customer
service officials had met all passengers when they arrived at Bush.
Some
passengers upset with the inconvenience were offered travel
certificate.
Dream Land
By ROSANNA RUIZ - Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Oil spewing from one of its engines, the limping airplane managed to
find
the tiny airfield at Midway Atoll.
From her window seat aboard the twin-engine Continental Boeing 777,
college
student Dawn Smith, 23, had a view of the ailing engine as she prepared
for
the landing on Midway's Sand Island airfield early Tuesday. The landing
made
for uncomfortable moments.
"The short runway was not built for a large aircraft," Smith, who
looked
flushed with her mussy hair, said Wednesday after the plane finally
made it
to Houston a day later than expected.
The 11-hour, 40-minute flight from Japan's Narita Airport to Houston's
Bush
Intercontinental Airport was due to arrive at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday.
Continental Flight 6 had 279 passengers and 15 crew members. A
Continental
spokeswoman previously said there were 235 passengers.
No injuries were reported.
The plane made its emergency landing at 3:10 a.m. Tuesday, Midway time.
The
atoll is about 2,200 miles east of Japan and near the northwestern end
of
the Hawaiian Islands archipelago.
After repairs were made to the engine's starter, the plane left the
atoll at
2:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Smith, a Sam Houston State University history major, had studied the
island's history as a key site of a U.S. naval victory during World War
II.
She took the unexpected 24-hour layover in stride.
Still, the food rations and uncomfortable sleeping arrangements inside
a
musty theater did not make for the most stellar accommodations.
"It'll be a long time before I get on another airplane," Smith said
upon her
arrival at Bush on Wednesday. She had spent the holidays with her
sister,
who is serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk.
Smith and the others waited a few hours aboard the plane before a
ladder was
found to get them off the aircraft. The passengers were given
sandwiches,
candy bars and beverages and were allowed to tour Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The pristine beaches, lush tropical foliage and millions of birds, such
as
the Laysan albatrosses or "gooney birds," Hawaiian monk seals and other
animals led Smith to conclude that "God is so wonderful."
"It was something to see," said another passenger, Allen McMahon, a
61-year-old Montgomery resident, of the onslaught of almost 300 people
to an
island that typically is populated by about 30 people.
McMahon's wife, Judy, 57, began to cry as she embraced her husband, who
appeared a little travel-weary. "I'm just glad to have him home," she
said.
Julie King, a spokeswoman for Houston-based Continental, said customer
service officials had met all passengers when they arrived at Bush.
Some
passengers upset with the inconvenience were offered travel
certificate.
Dream Land
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pompano Beach,FL- USA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I have never been to Midway, I've flown over it.
Is it possible for 4 engine airplanes to go there for 24 hours at the beach and the gooney birds??? What if the aft coffee maker fails? Would that qualify?
Is it possible for 4 engine airplanes to go there for 24 hours at the beach and the gooney birds??? What if the aft coffee maker fails? Would that qualify?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pristine beaches, lush tropical foliage and millions of birds, such as the Laysan albatrosses or "gooney birds," Hawaiian monk seals and other animals led Smith to conclude that "God is so wonderful."
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Krautland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The short runway was not built for a large aircraft."
I thought it was quite a generous size?
I thought it was quite a generous size?