AF 777
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re Windmilling -
Two aspects:
Safety - even if a windmilling engine should seize, the loads should be negligible compared to an operating engine, for which certification criteria have been demonstrated.
Resulting damage (economic loss) from windmilling - that's a matter between the motormaker and the airline. As long as the crew follows the recommendations, it's up to the engine manufacturer to make good any adversely-affected hardware.
Interesting, how is that regulated?
Safety - even if a windmilling engine should seize, the loads should be negligible compared to an operating engine, for which certification criteria have been demonstrated.
Resulting damage (economic loss) from windmilling - that's a matter between the motormaker and the airline. As long as the crew follows the recommendations, it's up to the engine manufacturer to make good any adversely-affected hardware.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
Word has it that the engine failure was the result of a composite fan blade failing....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
I find it interesting that the ETOPS failure mode in this thread only refers to engine failures 
During the test program one one of the 7's ( 767/777 ?)
They suffered a failure of a fuselage pressurisation Non return valve which not only got them down from flightlevel tremendous very quickly but on one of them ( I think there were 2 incidents) put some of the crew in hospital
Of course the valve has been modified so this cannot possibly happen again
During the test program one one of the 7's ( 767/777 ?)
They suffered a failure of a fuselage pressurisation Non return valve which not only got them down from flightlevel tremendous very quickly but on one of them ( I think there were 2 incidents) put some of the crew in hospital
Of course the valve has been modified so this cannot possibly happen again
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
"I'd prefer to continue to CDG in the triple7 on one.."
That was halarious. I just about spit up my tea when I read that.
Its not that I think Russian carriers are unsafe, but the tought of riding in a converted military aircraft across Siberia in the winter is somewhat uncomforting.
Reminds me of when I went to Peru. I chose the airline very carefully when it came to buying a ticket from Lima to Cuzco. We finaly decided on TACA after looking at equipment type and age. When I was in line to board the brand new A320 we passed one of Aerocontinente's geriatric 737s with built in airstairs and fuselage painted by hand. I really felt that I had made the right decision. But I digress...
That was halarious. I just about spit up my tea when I read that.
Its not that I think Russian carriers are unsafe, but the tought of riding in a converted military aircraft across Siberia in the winter is somewhat uncomforting.
Reminds me of when I went to Peru. I chose the airline very carefully when it came to buying a ticket from Lima to Cuzco. We finaly decided on TACA after looking at equipment type and age. When I was in line to board the brand new A320 we passed one of Aerocontinente's geriatric 737s with built in airstairs and fuselage painted by hand. I really felt that I had made the right decision. But I digress...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
Just a quick question re the previous ETOPS debate-are we talking about a least worst scanario or worst worst (as in preasure loss) becasue that makes quite a difference in performace and altitude calulations-25k v 10k and associated fule burn-the 207 min across the pacific on a least worst is fine-BUT-loss of preasure and then what?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
Originally Posted by Witraz
A question then: Having suffered an engine failure, crossing the Atlantic in winter, Reykjavik is 20 minutes closer than returning to Shannon, however Reykjavik's weather is forecast at below freezing, gusting 45kts in snow showers, and Shannon is calm and CAVOK. Reykjavik is the nearest suitable, which is the more SENSIBLE...........
Re: AF 777
Originally Posted by wakpilot
Just a quick question re the previous ETOPS debate-are we talking about a least worst scanario or worst worst (as in preasure loss) becasue that makes quite a difference in performace and altitude calulations-25k v 10k and associated fule burn-the 207 min across the pacific on a least worst is fine-BUT-loss of preasure and then what?
Re Windmilling
Our Trents have a 7 hour windmill limit but that assumes that there is no oil or oil pressure available. If the engine has been shut down for reasons other than loss of oil/ oil pressure and the windmilling is producing some oil pressure then there is no limit.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: paris
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
Interesting pictures about the engine replacement to be found here :http://airvb.free.fr/irk/irk.htm
Not much fun when the temperature drops to -34° c !
Not much fun when the temperature drops to -34° c !
Last edited by finessemax; 11th Jan 2006 at 17:38.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AF 777
finessemax, thanks for the link. I am impressed! Congratulations to all involved. (When did this happen? I would certainly like to read the story if someone who was there decides to write about it.)
