Two 777 Engine diversions in 1 day
Nexialist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acording to http://www.airnav.com/airport/PMDY runway length is 7904ft, of course we can't judge the student too harshly, airport/runway seem to be interchangable to the media and general public, and it cannot be denied that airport is small, with airbridges and redcaps in short supply
Just seen the fuel price at $2.75, that must have been painful, plus they had to fly in a mechanic, parts, and 300 boxed lunches. Ouch
Just seen the fuel price at $2.75, that must have been painful, plus they had to fly in a mechanic, parts, and 300 boxed lunches. Ouch
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you Dawn Smith for telling us your story ........
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/g451086.jpg
hobie ......
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/g451086.jpg
hobie ......
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landed there no-flaps in a C141 a couple of decades ago. I think I survived... Lemme check... Then again, I didn't major in history so I probably didn't understand the danger I was in.
Dave
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Specs indicate
Max Landing Weight, Wet runway, Sea Level - Min is a shade under 7300Ft for a 777-300ER of course dry and empty its a shade under 5000Ft
But then that is History... although at 2.75 you don't really have to dump too much...... O
Max Landing Weight, Wet runway, Sea Level - Min is a shade under 7300Ft for a 777-300ER of course dry and empty its a shade under 5000Ft
But then that is History... although at 2.75 you don't really have to dump too much...... O
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly a little off subject and certainly not 100% of the facts but last July flying DXB LHR on a 777 rolling down the runway when starboard engine goes bang and we slew all over the shop and finally come to rest. No smoke or fire but a fairly worrying incident none the less and plenty PAX slightly more concerned. Airline excellent and had us back up within the hour (new aircraft).
On return I checked up on the report and can't remember the exact details but seem to remember approx 50 knots short of take off speed.
Couple of questions. Is this close to take off speed and what is likely outcome should that have happened just when wheels leaving ground (I know much depends on reactions etc)?
Cheers
DM
On return I checked up on the report and can't remember the exact details but seem to remember approx 50 knots short of take off speed.
Couple of questions. Is this close to take off speed and what is likely outcome should that have happened just when wheels leaving ground (I know much depends on reactions etc)?
Cheers
DM
As the wheels leave the ground expect some roll as well, all easily correctable at that slightly higher speed.
The really good news is that you already have the nose pitch uo and you will just scoot right out of there.
The really good news is that you already have the nose pitch uo and you will just scoot right out of there.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Added to this there is something I like to refer to as Shuttle Mathematics. Back in 1980 it was predicted that the shuttle system would fail once in 10,000 launches (or something like that) after challenger that figure was reduced to 1 in less than 100, ie you would lose another one before completion of the ISS. I think the actual stats now show a 2 in 107.
What this tells us is that stats are just numbers built on assumptions and that in real life experience can sometimes proove them to be worthless especially when there is pressure for the "right result" from on high.
What this tells us is that stats are just numbers built on assumptions and that in real life experience can sometimes proove them to be worthless especially when there is pressure for the "right result" from on high.
There's mathematics that lets you calculate the system failure rate from the MTBF (and other more exotic parameters) of the components and so on. However, in these cases, you already know the system failure rate so you run the maths backwards to get the MTBF etc of the components.
Then you write these figures into the contracts with the suppliers, eg someone selling you a nut and bolt has to sign up to a MTBF of two and a half trillion years. By this stage the required numbers are clearly ludicrous, so the customer can't possibly really mean it can they, so the supplier just shrugs and signs. At this point the customer has a paper trail "proving" that the required system failure rate has been delivered.
Yeah, right. So that's how it works when specifying components for, say, a CD player, OK, so it breaks, what the hell, you bin it and buy a new one. Couldn't happen for safety critical stuff, now, could it??
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Figures lie and liars figure
To: Gertrude The Wombat
Are you a Reliability and /or Safety engineer? I have been a Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Engineering consultant since 1968 and the above statement is 110% correct.
What this tells us is that stats are just numbers built on assumptions and that in real life experience can sometimes proove them to be worthless especially when there is pressure for the "right result" from on high.
