Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

777-300ER delivery problem?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

777-300ER delivery problem?

Old 4th Jun 2004, 04:40
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
Hmmm,
perhaps a stabilization augmentation system needed.
Or, improved.
411A is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 09:34
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
747FOCAL:

You seem to have a real problem with this bird.

If it does have the sort of problems you have mentioned I would expect to start to see the media pick up on this.

Oh, sorry this might actually be something the public would want to hear about .... so maybe not!




Out of choice then I don't suppose you would be seen in one again.
always-pending is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 11:24
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
747Focal,

I'm surprised by your comment about needing new wings! I was under the impression this problem was something to do with autopilot logic, and the software is being re-written as we speak to get rid of this issue?
BigHitDH is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 11:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
747FOCAL: Does this problem also apply to the standard -300 or only to the -300ER? If it's a motion issue - it probably puts it on a par with the A340-600!

Gaspath / lasernigel: I understand that the GE exclusivity is for all B777 variants with a MTOW of 700k/lb+ so, in theory, a variant could be developed with RR or PW engines with a restricted MTOW of 699k/lb (assuming anyone would want it). Anyone know if the GE agreement has a time limit? Only ask because interested to see that ANZ just ordered RR powered B777-200ERs and B7E7s and also optioned B777-300ERs for delivery in 2010+. Maybe they know that, by then, they'll be able to have RR power on the -300ER too - otherwise it would seem more logical to have specified GE for the -200ERs and 7E7s.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 12:33
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
Torquelink.

Logical if the main decision was based on the 777 but not if it was based on the 7E7.

ANZ may think that the 7E7 variants better match the airlines growth plan and so have picked the engine they think best suits it. Not knowing much about the GE or RR engine I can't comment.

The decision on the 777 will then be based around any possible switching rights. Having chosen RR for the 7E7 it is only logical to then go with them on the 777.

747FOCAL put the 777X problem down to airframe and not the engine so pushing out the 777-300ER options for an RR engine doesn't help this problem.
always-pending is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 16:23
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
It is only the ER version and only above a certain weight does the problem come into play. I am not going to say exactly what it is, but a smart aero person has more than enough information in this thread to figure it out.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 22:41
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Air France has categorically stated, in the plainest terms possible, that there was absolutely no incident of any sort on the delivery flight.

So if - and I stress 'if' - it turns out that there was a technical issue on the delivery flight, I'll be asking Air France some very difficult questions. Mainly about lying.
Kalium Chloride is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2004, 23:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Its not dangerous if that is what you are worried about.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 12:52
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Air France has categorically stated, in the plainest terms possible, that there was absolutely no incident of any sort on the delivery flight.
Perhaps they indeed were telling the truth. My understanding is the incident didn't happen during the delivery flight.

I wonder what Mr Boeing will do when BA asks for 15 777-300ER aircraft (plus options!) but not with that powerplant?
Mr Boeing will tell BA to go ahead and buy the A340-600 that is on a fattening diet and will be some 50 to 60,000lb heavier than the 777-300ER just to match what the -300ER can do. If you let engine selection to drive your aircraft purchase decision, then that's what you're going to get.
casual observer is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 15:14
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
After talking with some of my Boeing friends, it appears the incident being discussed happened during a Boeing production flight test of an Air France airplane before delivery. It was reported as part of the normal incident reporting process required by the FAA.
Old Aero Guy is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 15:27
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 97
From what I can REMEMBER the basic 777 had a yaw-sick prob when new. I think it was a long job to get the best set up on the yaw damper.
xyz_pilot is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 16:54
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
how the heck can the story vary from a problem/diversion to an Engine shutdown on delivery flight to a pre-delivery problem?

the sort of story that would drive Boeing/Air France up the wall!!!!

hobie is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 17:38
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1
I do know for a fact that this 777-300ER supposed to be delivered on Friday May 28th, but the delivery was postponed until Tuesday June 1 due to change of an Engine. So the engine shutdown did happen on the last Boeing Test Flight and AF is quite correct in stating that the delivery flight went normal.
dc-8-63 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 18:23
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
hobie, My friend obviously got wind of something as verified by this thread. He just didn't have all the details.

I agree that Boeing and AF will be driven mad by this problem but because it has happened on an engine that has only just entered service. The late delivery, potential lost revenue, service management will all make them mad.

As for the event. It doesn't matter that it occured on pre delivery, delivery or in service, it is still an engine shut down on a new engine. This should concern us all.

I suppose AF should be thankful that this problem doesn't require them to follow every take off with a dustpan like BA's experience.
always-pending is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 18:50
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,336
As for the event. It doesn't matter that it occured on pre delivery, delivery or in service, it is still an engine shut down on a new engine. This should concern us all.
No doubt that it will concern GE, Boeing and AF, but it certainly should not be a concern to all

The flight wasn't even in revenue service and for all we know might not even carry the latest Service Bulletins, prior to entering service.

An economic concern to the bean counters but not necessairly an operational concern
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2004, 19:16
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
pre-delivery shake-downs are a totally different ball game ...... if PPRuNe followed every snag cleared up in pre-delivery checks we would never get any time for sleep

the aircraft was delivered to spec with no problems on the delivery flight!!! - no engine shut down - no diversion - no xxxx nothing - Air France have a fine new Aircraft - long live Boeing (and the Bus company too!!!!)

hobie is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2004, 11:05
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,637
If the -ER bucks around as suggested earlier in this thread, does this not possibly raise questions about the airframe fatiguing faster?
Taildragger67 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2004, 13:02
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lantau
Posts: 53
I have flown both 747s and now I am on the 777. It's the best aicraft type that I have ever flown so far. When I first got on the 777, we jokingly called it the cripple 7. 6 years later, I wouldn't trade it for anything else.
Cripple 7 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2004, 19:41
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 22
I agree that the base 777 is a fine aircraft, from what I've heard one of the best. Although 747FOCAL does put this into question for the new version.

As for an engine shut down not causing everyone concern then I think you should see if the authorities feel this way.

A shake down is meant to pick up on manufacturing problems/ quality and isn't meant to pick up design defects as this appears to be. If this was a manufacturing quality problem then at least call it as one and the issue should be dropped, if not it shoud be a concern!

I agree that time will tell on the success of this aircraft/ engine as it does with all. With the level of investment I have no doubt it will be a success.
always-pending is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2004, 20:40
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
I am not trying to say it is a bad aircraft. It is just fine. The problem came from doing what every manufacturer does by growing the aircraft beyond its original intentions. If you do that you have to redesign certain things or performance problems as well as other problems can arise and you can't see them until it is already flying.

Airbus has had these problems with their A340-500 and -600 as well.
747FOCAL is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.