Acceptable Deferred Defect???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Acceptable Deferred Defect???
This was sent to me this morning...
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The following pictures prove the superior dispatchability and survivability of the Boeing 747.
An Asian airline operator came into FRA (Frankfurt, Germany) for an unscheduled refuelling stop. The reason became soon apparent to the ground crew: The fan on the number 3 engine didn't look so good. That had apparently been no problem for the tough guys back in Asia: Get yourself some sturdy straps and wrap them around fan blades and the structures behind, thus stopping any windmilling and associated uncomfortable vibration while in flight caused by the suboptimal fan. Off you go into the wild blue yonder with another revenue-making flight! If you get low on fuel, just set it down on at the closest airport, FRA in this case.
But that's when the problem started: Those Germans are so picky that they grounded the aircraft!
After that, the airline operator had to raise some money (took about 10 days) to get the engine changed. The repair contractor also decided to do some inspection work on the other engines because none of them looked all that great anymore. The result: A total of 3 engines were finally changed on this airplane before it was allowed to fly again.
Hmmmmm.......</font>
An Asian airline operator came into FRA (Frankfurt, Germany) for an unscheduled refuelling stop. The reason became soon apparent to the ground crew: The fan on the number 3 engine didn't look so good. That had apparently been no problem for the tough guys back in Asia: Get yourself some sturdy straps and wrap them around fan blades and the structures behind, thus stopping any windmilling and associated uncomfortable vibration while in flight caused by the suboptimal fan. Off you go into the wild blue yonder with another revenue-making flight! If you get low on fuel, just set it down on at the closest airport, FRA in this case.
But that's when the problem started: Those Germans are so picky that they grounded the aircraft!
After that, the airline operator had to raise some money (took about 10 days) to get the engine changed. The repair contractor also decided to do some inspection work on the other engines because none of them looked all that great anymore. The result: A total of 3 engines were finally changed on this airplane before it was allowed to fly again.
Hmmmmm.......</font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Those photos are utterly astounding! Were it not for the stature of the poster (!!) I would have assumed an April Fool of some sort.
I suppose you can't drop a hint as to the airline involved (I've got the blue on fuselage, but still can't work it out)....
I suppose you can't drop a hint as to the airline involved (I've got the blue on fuselage, but still can't work it out)....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I trust this was the #3 or #4 engine; if I had been boarding that thing and taken one look at the engine, guess who'd have been getting the flight delayed for his bags to be off-loaded! I know I tend to "wax lyrical" about the reasons for having more than 2 donkeys but . . .
SH-one-T
If this had been posted a day earlier, despite the qualifications of the poster, I'd definitely say it was a wind-up!
(looking back at the pictures, it looks like a left-side donk - are pax BLIND?
)
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 02 April 2001).]
SH-one-T
If this had been posted a day earlier, despite the qualifications of the poster, I'd definitely say it was a wind-up!
(looking back at the pictures, it looks like a left-side donk - are pax BLIND?
)------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 02 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
a three engine ferry is perfectly safe and legal on a B747 and ferry is the word, no passengers allowed. As a rule of thum, the fan on the ead engine has to be either tied up or the blades removed and the three good engines borescoped before each and every departure. Even the good old DC10/MD11 can depart on 2 engines, a ferry of course and no Chinese accounting allowed. As Dodgy says, 2 Cross pens, a Leatherman and plenty of B******t
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looks a bit dodgy to be a B747, I bet my bottom dollar on it being a IL76 (ever seen A 747 wing like that! hmm )and quite possible Aeroflot judging by the colour scheme, for comparison:
http://home.worldonline.dk/~lai/afl_il76.html
http://home.worldonline.dk/~lai/afl_il76.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Posted exactly as received from someone in Oz. Don't associate the a/c in the background as being the a/c from which the engine has been removed as it is on a 'trolley'. Only posted because it sounded interesting.
------------------
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork
------------------
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork
Guest
Posts: n/a
That is, or rather what's left of it is, a P&W JT9D.
The wing in the background is a 747 wing.
Probably a bird strike.
IF it did have punters on board I bet there wasn't an awful lot of runway left at the end of the T.O run
As nilnotedtks points out a ferry flt. is perfectly safe on three, although usually the fan is removed the core blanked and spraged, to prevent it from rotating as it has a tendancy to dump all it's oil due to the lack of bearing pressurisation
The wing in the background is a 747 wing.
Probably a bird strike.
IF it did have punters on board I bet there wasn't an awful lot of runway left at the end of the T.O run
As nilnotedtks points out a ferry flt. is perfectly safe on three, although usually the fan is removed the core blanked and spraged, to prevent it from rotating as it has a tendancy to dump all it's oil due to the lack of bearing pressurisation
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've seen aircraft that never get washed unless they fly through severe chemical storms. This lil puppy obviously struck a flock of cargo straps. With maintenance standards like this, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see revenue cargo in the cold stream, secured by those straps !!
God bless their little cotton sox but the shame of it is, they probably don't know any better.
God bless their little cotton sox but the shame of it is, they probably don't know any better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
3 engine ferry on 4 engined aircraft has been a procedure since day dot.
Done it on a DC-6, in another life.
Not sure about strapping blades, looks like they may be strapped to stators, which would seem to make sense if you want to stop rotation.
What the story was on the rest of the engines was I don't know, but boroscope and filter/chip checks are normally mandatory, maybe they were not done?
Even when they are done there are no guarantees.
I saw a PanAm L-1011 leave BGI on a 2 engine ferry to JFK and lose a second one soon after T/O. He announced he was returning due to engine failure and the controller started to issue vectors and altitudes, his response was not totally printable but in effect said "you don't understand, I am returning directly to the airport NOW, clear all traffic."
He was still dumping at touchdown and JUST made it.
Ref the damage, I have seen a JT8-D in worse shape after an incident with more than half a dozen ducks. It still ran, but only at 1.3 EPR- but even that was welcome, since the other one had also swallowed ducks and had hiccuped (sp?) twice, but kept running. This second engine had feathers from an estimated 3 ducks on the stators, but no significant damage to the fan blades.
Can one infer that a JT8-D has a limitation of 3 ducks max?
[This message has been edited by SunSeaSandfly (edited 03 April 2001).]
Done it on a DC-6, in another life.
Not sure about strapping blades, looks like they may be strapped to stators, which would seem to make sense if you want to stop rotation.
What the story was on the rest of the engines was I don't know, but boroscope and filter/chip checks are normally mandatory, maybe they were not done?
Even when they are done there are no guarantees.
I saw a PanAm L-1011 leave BGI on a 2 engine ferry to JFK and lose a second one soon after T/O. He announced he was returning due to engine failure and the controller started to issue vectors and altitudes, his response was not totally printable but in effect said "you don't understand, I am returning directly to the airport NOW, clear all traffic."
He was still dumping at touchdown and JUST made it.
Ref the damage, I have seen a JT8-D in worse shape after an incident with more than half a dozen ducks. It still ran, but only at 1.3 EPR- but even that was welcome, since the other one had also swallowed ducks and had hiccuped (sp?) twice, but kept running. This second engine had feathers from an estimated 3 ducks on the stators, but no significant damage to the fan blades.
Can one infer that a JT8-D has a limitation of 3 ducks max?
[This message has been edited by SunSeaSandfly (edited 03 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
SunSeaSandfly ,
Can I ask how many engines were on the aircraft that had the "duck lunch" - I hope we're not talking ETOPS here (here I go again about long haul twins!)
As for the PanAm Clipper Skipper - I can imagine how I would have phrased it too
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Can I ask how many engines were on the aircraft that had the "duck lunch" - I hope we're not talking ETOPS here
(here I go again about long haul twins!)As for the PanAm Clipper Skipper - I can imagine how I would have phrased it too
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!