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

AF 777

Old 17th Dec 2005, 18:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AF 777

landed at Irkutsk. What happened?

regards
catchup is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2005, 20:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 604
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MOSCOW, Dec. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- An Air France airliner made an emergency landing in Russia's Siberian region Saturday after it suffered an engine stall, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.

The Air France Boeing 777 jet, with 220 passengers aboard, madea request for emergency landing in the Siberian city of Irkutsk after one of the jet's two engines stopped during a flight from Seoul to Paris, Irkutsk airport director general Alexei Kulikov told Itar-Tass.

Kulikov said the landing was smooth.

All passengers and the crew have been accommodated at the airport and are expected to spend the night at local hotels. Enditem
Longtimer is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2005, 21:46
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,716
Likes: 0
Received 59 Likes on 31 Posts
All passengers and the crew have been accommodated at the airport and are expected to spend the night at local hotels
Hmmm, 220 pax, no Russian visas, suddenly wanting accommodation in Irkutsk of all places. That should be a barrel of laughs.
WHBM is online now  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 06:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tarascon - France
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Passengers will be flown with IL 96 to Moscow and then transfered to CDG - engine of the 777 needs complete change...
I think the days of the A 340-600 and A340-500 are not completely over yet...
Flying over the pacific on a twin is defenitely not the safest of all solutions - the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes )
beaucaire is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 06:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Good From Far, Far From Good
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello beaucaire

the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes )
Would you care to elaborate more on your statement.

Thanks
concordino is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 07:05
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,042
Received 30 Likes on 12 Posts
A United Airlines B777 did a 192min single engine diversion a few years ago. I think it was out of AKL going LAX. Memory fades though.
Don
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 07:45
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Question

Yes a United B777 did go 12 minutes over, but that is on the extended ETOPS limit.
I think that is 207 minutes, if my memory serves me?
Mr @ Spotty M is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 07:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tarascon - France
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.......about an United Airlines Boeing 777 that flew for 192 minutes on a one engine diversion after it had a technical problem on a route from Auckland to Los Angeles. It made an emergency diversion and landed safely at the Kona airport in Hawaii on 17th March 2003. It exceeded the regulated 3 hours by 12 minutes due to strong headwind and that was not a problem on the engine.
beaucaire is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 08:11
  #9 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I think the days of the A 340-600 and A340-500 are not completely over yet...
I missed who said that it was.

Flying over the pacific on a twin is defenitely not the safest of all solutions - the 180 min ETOP rule has been broken in the past (by 12 minutes
Why is it not? Did the United aircraft that exceeded the rules by 12 minutes meet disaster?

Would you care to actually construct a post that contains material suitable for logical argument rather than sweeping generalisations based on your, presumably unqualified, opinion and prejudices?
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 08:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UAE
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Time limit on any ETOPS flight be it 120/180/207 etc, is a regultory figure that is based on an agreed speed (that the aircraft often does not do in practice) and still air. If an ETOPS aircraft is operating right on the edge of it's range circle and it looses an engine or goes down to 10,000 it WILL exceed the time limit no question, and this is still perfectly legal.
logan is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 09:02
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbricht
Posts: 2,196
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
If an ETOPS aircraft is operating right on the edge of it's range circle and it looses an engine or goes down to 10,000 it WILL exceed the time limit no question, and this is still perfectly legal.
The niggling problem I have with all these "legal" issues is whether they are in fact SAFE. And for me, 180 (or 207) should mean just that. If you start making exceptions where do they end?
Avman is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 09:16
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am sure flying on one engine is fine.

However, it would be interesting to have a video of cockpit during these operations.

I remember reading years ago about these ETOPS and they mentioned a case when a twin had control problems on one engine(poss bleed valves stuck open) and only about 50% power avail on that engine, this was OK.

But other engine had oil leak and crew noticed oil reducing, they diverted very quick and all was OK.

Think after crew noticed leak, engine had about 75mins left till out of oil.

Lucky they were not on the 207 time zone when this occured.

Think it was a PAN AM A310 in the early 1990's, does anybody have the details.
Joetom is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 09:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ETOPS is about managing risk to an acceptable level. Following an initial failure of the engine, what is the risk of a subsequent failure occuring within the 180/207 minute period that would result in a catastrophe. If the risk is small enough then it is considered SAFE.
Trash Hauler is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 09:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the risk of sounding like a Mod (and apologies to Mod's if I'm stepping on toes), but is this not thread drift of the worse kind?

Jordan
Jordan D is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 10:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only problem with some of these posts is they drift into "what if". Perhaps under 180mins rule with an engine failure "what if" the opposite wing fell off!

I deal in facts. I flew for 35 years, 20 on the Trident and 15 on the 757,767, and 777. In that time I never had an engine failure on the aircraft, thousands on the simulator, but none on the aircraft.

ETOPS (or EROPS as it used to be called) whether it is 120,180 or 207 is all about risk. Obviously there are risks heading out across the pond, across Canada or across Russia on two engines but surely it is about level of risk. Ignoring fuel contamination (which would affect a 747/340) the chances of both engines failing on one flight is so remote as to be ignored.

I only know one chap personally within the airline who shut down an engine half way across the pond on a 767. After having his meal disrupted (and the actual shutdown procedures) the only problem was that there was very little to do during the 90mins "on one". It's all in the mind, looking at the single engine whirring away normally, but is that not what thousands of private aviators do all their lives?

It would seem on this forum that there are so many that fit in to the (humorous) bracket of a friend on 747 who stated "Wouldn't get me across the pond on a twin. The only reason I bid for the 747 was that there was nothing in the airline with five engines"

Bring a little more reality into this discussion and a little less sensationalism, leave that to the tabloid press.
woodpecker is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 11:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone know, where the engine will be changed?
UIII 181200Z 25003MPS CAVOK M14/M20 Q1033 NOSIG RMK QFE729/0973 30810240
(I hope not outside!)
pax2908 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 13:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The niggling problem I have with all these "legal" issues is whether they are in fact SAFE.
SAFE compared to what? Walking across the street?

Safety is not a binary issue. It is not like the "safety" on a firearm one switches on and off.

Professionals measure safety as a real quantity - xxx events per million hours, or whatever.
barit1 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 14:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,562
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
Risk Management -- ETOPS vs. former CCCP domestic carrier

Passengers will be flown with IL 96 to Moscow and then transfered to CDG
Me -- I'd be taking the train from Irkutsk rather than any local domestic carrier
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 14:18
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Me -- I'd be taking the train from Irkutsk rather than any local domestic carrier
I'd prefer to continue to CDG in the triple7 on one, unless AF had some other issue that hasn't been mentioned!

(BTW, what's the MEA over the Urals?)
barit1 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2005, 15:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe on a A340 you could continue on (still) 3 engines and avoid all these inconveniences?
speech is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.