Article: NTSB: Emirates 777 continued flight after loud bang, messages
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report does not discuss what procedures the Emirates crew followed after hearing the bang and receiving the AHM annunciations or whether the aircraft should have been returned to Domodedovo.
They did their job and the outcome was a success. There are, however, questions to be answered about the cause of the tyre failure and the resulting damage.
Some of these responses miss the obvious , the report said a large chunk of reverser fell off , even on our modern hi tech a/c there is no EICAS message for that . The messages that came were probably due to damage to wiring caused by the failure . been quite a few of these failures now , shows the difficulty with composites !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Boeing uses the term "status message" in a manner consistent with us (or is that vice versa) I'd guess "nothing at all" - status messages don't require crew action.
For all the armchair theorists/non 777 pilots, please take note what Wizofox says. What he says is absolutely correct. He knows what he is talking about.
Engine surge/stall gives a loud audible bang, or series of bangs, temporary loss of thrust an not necessarily any damage. A bang and a status message doesn't necessarily indicate a continuing problem with or damage to the engine.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANTI AB LOBBY: "You guys are relying waay too much on computers and are losing airmanship"
AB LOBBY: "Go away dinosaur"
*BANG*
AB LOBBY: "Computer says all hunky dory - keep going"
AB LOBBY: "Go away dinosaur"
*BANG*
AB LOBBY: "Computer says all hunky dory - keep going"
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I'm not a commercial pilot.
@Contacted
"A new bulletin relating to Thrust Reverser Inner Wall failure now recommends landing at the nearest suitable airfield.
If this particular flight had this problem (since the bulletin issue) then the crew would not have continued to Dubai."
If that is the case then in this particular case, and with hindsight, you'd have to say that return to airfield would have been a good decision (although maybe for the wrong reasons at the time).
I'm curious though, if they had decided to return would they have had to fly around burning fuel for maybe 5 hours? Given that the thrust reverser was apparently affected this could be quite significant no? As the flight was presumably not over any huge body of water, maybe calculating your possible diversions and carrying on with vigilance makes quite a lot of sense?
@Contacted
"A new bulletin relating to Thrust Reverser Inner Wall failure now recommends landing at the nearest suitable airfield.
If this particular flight had this problem (since the bulletin issue) then the crew would not have continued to Dubai."
If that is the case then in this particular case, and with hindsight, you'd have to say that return to airfield would have been a good decision (although maybe for the wrong reasons at the time).
I'm curious though, if they had decided to return would they have had to fly around burning fuel for maybe 5 hours? Given that the thrust reverser was apparently affected this could be quite significant no? As the flight was presumably not over any huge body of water, maybe calculating your possible diversions and carrying on with vigilance makes quite a lot of sense?
Any chance that we can disscet the NTSB full report rather than a newspaper's summary of what plays to the public.
I don't have a hangup about status messages alone, but I would be curious about the kind of stuff captured on the DFDR.
I don't have a hangup about status messages alone, but I would be curious about the kind of stuff captured on the DFDR.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not sure now
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're all assuming the report of a "loud bang" is accurate. Perhaps there was or perhaps there was not. This exact same failure just occured again last week on a HAM-DXB flight. That crew did not report a "loud bang".
The other thing that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is when the Status message inhibit ends. To refresh some memories or let those who do not fly the B777 understand it is, "cruise or 30 minutes after lift-off, whichever occurs first".
You're all assuming their was a lound bang and then a bunch of messages. Not to be blamed as that is the way the report makes it sound. But was that in fact the case? I highly doubt it.
The other thing that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is when the Status message inhibit ends. To refresh some memories or let those who do not fly the B777 understand it is, "cruise or 30 minutes after lift-off, whichever occurs first".
You're all assuming their was a lound bang and then a bunch of messages. Not to be blamed as that is the way the report makes it sound. But was that in fact the case? I highly doubt it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB version of the info is here, copied below for convenience:
ENG11RA030
On March 5,2011, the crew of an Emirates Airlines , Fligth 132, a B777-200ER (A6-EMH) reported a load bang on take off from DME upon landing at DXB.
Following the bang a number of Status Messages were annunciated, these messages occurred over a 16 minute time as per the Boeing AHM Data, They were:
THRUST ASYM COMP
ENG EEC C1 R
ENG EEC MODE R
ENG R EPR BLANKING
TURB OVHT SNSR ENG R
Further messages occurred on March 6, 2011 at 0202, as per Boeing AHM Data, They were:
FIRE LOOP 1 ENG R
OVERHEAT CIRCUIT R1
On walk around inspection, found a large section of the INBD Fan Duct
and Thrust Reverser (IPC 78-31-01-05, Item 001) missing, missing material stemmed from the trailing edge at the 9 o'clock position, FWD approximately 5 ft at max dimension and tapering down to approx 2 feet at the 12 and 6 o'clock position, total of between 30 and 40 square feet approx.
It was also observed that the primary exhaust nozzle (IPC 78-11-14-01, Item 35), outer skin, had detached completely and that the inner skin was holed in several locations at the 12 to 1 o'clock position.
The #12 Main wheel was observed to have a large cut to the sideway (approx 14"). No other damage was immediately visible.
Informed by DME station that items believed to be part or all of primary exhaust nozzle were recovered from within the airport perimeter. Investigation is ongoing, TR cowls not yet opened. Inspection of aircraft for secondary damage still to be carried out. Photographs have been take by MLMS EK ENG Line Maint/Group Safety and Quality.
The investigation is under the jurisdiction of the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) of the United Arab Emirates. Further information pertaining to this accident may be obtained from:
web: Welcome to UAE General Civil Aviation Authority
This report is for informational purposes only and contains only
information obtained for, or released by, the GCAA.
On March 5,2011, the crew of an Emirates Airlines , Fligth 132, a B777-200ER (A6-EMH) reported a load bang on take off from DME upon landing at DXB.
Following the bang a number of Status Messages were annunciated, these messages occurred over a 16 minute time as per the Boeing AHM Data, They were:
THRUST ASYM COMP
ENG EEC C1 R
ENG EEC MODE R
ENG R EPR BLANKING
TURB OVHT SNSR ENG R
Further messages occurred on March 6, 2011 at 0202, as per Boeing AHM Data, They were:
FIRE LOOP 1 ENG R
OVERHEAT CIRCUIT R1
On walk around inspection, found a large section of the INBD Fan Duct
and Thrust Reverser (IPC 78-31-01-05, Item 001) missing, missing material stemmed from the trailing edge at the 9 o'clock position, FWD approximately 5 ft at max dimension and tapering down to approx 2 feet at the 12 and 6 o'clock position, total of between 30 and 40 square feet approx.
It was also observed that the primary exhaust nozzle (IPC 78-11-14-01, Item 35), outer skin, had detached completely and that the inner skin was holed in several locations at the 12 to 1 o'clock position.
The #12 Main wheel was observed to have a large cut to the sideway (approx 14"). No other damage was immediately visible.
Informed by DME station that items believed to be part or all of primary exhaust nozzle were recovered from within the airport perimeter. Investigation is ongoing, TR cowls not yet opened. Inspection of aircraft for secondary damage still to be carried out. Photographs have been take by MLMS EK ENG Line Maint/Group Safety and Quality.
The investigation is under the jurisdiction of the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) of the United Arab Emirates. Further information pertaining to this accident may be obtained from:
web: Welcome to UAE General Civil Aviation Authority
This report is for informational purposes only and contains only
information obtained for, or released by, the GCAA.
Last edited by Mad (Flt) Scientist; 1st Sep 2011 at 16:11. Reason: added NTSb "report"
Pray tell me then, what EICAS messages do you get on this airplane between 80kts and 400 ft AGL...??!!
The inhibit system means most master cautions are inhibited between 80kts and 400ft. But AFTER 400ft, any conditions that remain detected are then annunciated. I'm no sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that because a non-normal occurred before 400ft, it would not have been annunciated?
Not so-the annunciation would just have been delayed until the end of the inhibit period for that condition. If you are a 777 pilot and not aware of that, may I suggest some remedial study....
Grizzled-my appologies. My colleagues are being unfairly slammed here by some pretty ignorant comments, I accept yours was not one of them.
Bigmouth,
If the flight had been in the opposite direction, from Dubai to Moscow, would they still have continued?
Would you?
Would you?
I've had a similar occurrence. A Black Cockatoo once went through my By-pass duct and took a chunk of the lining with it. Ok. That's happened. The engine is stable, no change in parameters, no thought of a shutdown,what exactly is the jeopardy in continuing?
Last edited by Wizofoz; 1st Sep 2011 at 19:05.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not an engine failure; the flight is not ETOPS.
They did not disregard any "land asap" advisory.
This is one of those cases for a Command course and I think those in favour of diverting or continuing will be divided in 50/50.
The crew took the commercial view and with the info we have so far (and from my armchair) I totally agree.
They did not disregard any "land asap" advisory.
This is one of those cases for a Command course and I think those in favour of diverting or continuing will be divided in 50/50.
The crew took the commercial view and with the info we have so far (and from my armchair) I totally agree.
Mad )Flt) Scientist
Thanks for the factual summary.
Count me in as one of those that says it's too early to express opinions about the conduct of this flight.
Too bad the NTSB has place themselves on the front page without being able to comment fully to sites like PPrune
There is no NTSB "Full report", and likely never will be. There's a summary of info on the NTSB website, but NTSB isn't the lead agency.
The NTSB version of the info is here, copied below for convenience:
The NTSB version of the info is here, copied below for convenience:
Count me in as one of those that says it's too early to express opinions about the conduct of this flight.
Too bad the NTSB has place themselves on the front page without being able to comment fully to sites like PPrune
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JooJoo , I think you nailed it , with regards what the manufacturer would have prefered. The bulletin issued as a result of this incident. However the crew were doing what thay were trained to do at the time . Makes one think does'nt it ?
Wizofoz...
No worries Mate. I too get frustrated at times at pposters who suggest a certain action by a certain crew was not appropriate -- with no evidence to support such a statement. I simply ignore such comments if they are clearly made out of ignorance, but when they appear on a professional thread, or from someone who purports to be a professional, I do wonder...
No worries Mate. I too get frustrated at times at pposters who suggest a certain action by a certain crew was not appropriate -- with no evidence to support such a statement. I simply ignore such comments if they are clearly made out of ignorance, but when they appear on a professional thread, or from someone who purports to be a professional, I do wonder...