Article: NTSB: Emirates 777 continued flight after loud bang, messages
Over 4000 hours on the mighty triple seven and I can tell you that if I'd heard a loud bang with yaw then seen lots of status messages related to the same Engine then I most certainly would RTB all things considerered.
For gods sake it's a TWIN.
In my experience with the 777 if the CMC/ACMS told you something was wrong it usually was......unlike the AB.
We are not TEST PILOTS people and our Passengers deserve our good judgement and experience and this doesn't include RISK TAKING.
For gods sake it's a TWIN.
In my experience with the 777 if the CMC/ACMS told you something was wrong it usually was......unlike the AB.
We are not TEST PILOTS people and our Passengers deserve our good judgement and experience and this doesn't include RISK TAKING.
Guest
Posts: n/a
4000 hours and flying another type "twin Boeing jet", I fully agree with nitpicker330.
Why take any chance? Was commercial pressure a factor? SAT phone with direct connection to Maintenance control and/or flight ops can be helpful, or not.
At the end of the day, it's you the crew sitting up here with your passengers who makes the call.
And yes, I wouldn't mind explaining that in the office later on. Probably easier that trying to justify the other option (possible engine failure 1/2 way through the cruise in the middle of no where).
But hey, no judgment to the crew, I wasn't there. They landed safely after all.
Why take any chance? Was commercial pressure a factor? SAT phone with direct connection to Maintenance control and/or flight ops can be helpful, or not.
At the end of the day, it's you the crew sitting up here with your passengers who makes the call.
And yes, I wouldn't mind explaining that in the office later on. Probably easier that trying to justify the other option (possible engine failure 1/2 way through the cruise in the middle of no where).
But hey, no judgment to the crew, I wasn't there. They landed safely after all.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicker, nowhere does it say there was a yaw, just a loud bang. That could come from a bird strike, tyre etc, not necessarily from an engine.
In recent years there have been a few cases of pieces falling off aircraft and none crashed. In many cases it was only discovered after landing at destination.
I wasn't there so cannot judge without all the FACTS.
In recent years there have been a few cases of pieces falling off aircraft and none crashed. In many cases it was only discovered after landing at destination.
I wasn't there so cannot judge without all the FACTS.
Generally on the 777 if the TAC failed it was from a stall/surge on one of the Engines confusing the system so it shuts down!! Therefore one could possibly assume that there must have been some sort of Yaw during the "bang" event.
Bangs are NOT normal and one followed by a lot of Status messages should lead one to consider all is not well with your donk!!
Bangs are NOT normal and one followed by a lot of Status messages should lead one to consider all is not well with your donk!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAC disconnect
Generally you are right but the TAC will also disconnect if an engine thrust data is lost. Engine EPR blanking in combination with some of those other status messages just might add up to that situation in which case no yaw.
however in principle I'm with you in that 'if it looks, feels and sounds like a fish.....then it's probably a fish' BUT i was not on the FD
however in principle I'm with you in that 'if it looks, feels and sounds like a fish.....then it's probably a fish' BUT i was not on the FD
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that all the 'experts' on this thread would have been aware that 'THRUST ASYM COMP' means the system has failed - not that it has operated as the reporter at Flight Global seems to think. 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of armchair theorists here.
Has anyone thought about the weather in DME? March can be pretty nasty.
Has anyone considered the option of continuing with enroute diversions available on better/cleaner runways if DME was contaminated?
There are a heap of variables here, and a lot of people who seem quick to jump in and condem.
If you would have done it differently, great. BUT you weren't there, neither was I.
Has anyone thought about the weather in DME? March can be pretty nasty.
Has anyone considered the option of continuing with enroute diversions available on better/cleaner runways if DME was contaminated?
There are a heap of variables here, and a lot of people who seem quick to jump in and condem.
If you would have done it differently, great. BUT you weren't there, neither was I.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-400 rated not 777, but looks like C1 EEC right engine failed then C2 struggled with the EPR possibly due to missing ducting, corrupted data I'm outta here resulting in EEC R which means N1 mode? no A/T therfore no TAC? Is there any action required for the left engine in this case? On the -400 with an EEC failed we have to drive all the remaining engines into N1 mode by turning off the EECs.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking purely as an interested observer in all things PPRuNe, if those sitting at the sharp end are unable to agree about actions to be taken when fault advisories are annunciated from a FD, then does this not suggest that there is something wrong with the 'system'? If the end always justifies the means, then it would appear that the pilots made the correct decision, however had the same event(s) a decidedly different outcome, what course would discussions have proceeded along then?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and more than one way of getting it wrong! My main point is that if events can rapidly degenerate to a total loss of control, why take the risk? As I implied, if this had produced a worse outcome, would you have agreed with the pilots decision to continue? What price skinning of the cat then?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main point is that if events can rapidly degenerate to a total loss of control
Did you previously work for the News of the World?
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
Hold on. Who said anything about a loss of control! This was a series of STATUS messages (see previous posts), nothing to do with control OR engine failure.
Yes the situation could deteriorate, but only as far as the loss of the use of that engine which is not life threatening. However this engine stayed running and there wasn't any indication that it would do otherwise.
IIRC another major European carrier had a very similar event coming out of China. Due to an unexpected increase in fuel burn by one engine they ended up not having enough to return to main base and diverted to somewhere in Europe only to find most of a reverser and all of the 'c' duct were missing on the higher fuel burn engine.
I guess different pilots have different thresholds for diverting but I can tell you that on a four engine boeing I have never diverted for a status message and I would be surprised if my 2 engine colleagues would have in this case. Of course the nature of the route, available diversion airfields enroute and the severity of the failures encountered play a part in the decision making process.
No yaw, no indications of engine vibration or loss of thrust. A shortish flight, with a route over land with good available diversion airfields enroute and no high msa's and a chat with engineering who have access to real time engine data the pilots can't see. I'd have a hard time criticizing the actions of this crew.
IIRC another major European carrier had a very similar event coming out of China. Due to an unexpected increase in fuel burn by one engine they ended up not having enough to return to main base and diverted to somewhere in Europe only to find most of a reverser and all of the 'c' duct were missing on the higher fuel burn engine.
I guess different pilots have different thresholds for diverting but I can tell you that on a four engine boeing I have never diverted for a status message and I would be surprised if my 2 engine colleagues would have in this case. Of course the nature of the route, available diversion airfields enroute and the severity of the failures encountered play a part in the decision making process.
No yaw, no indications of engine vibration or loss of thrust. A shortish flight, with a route over land with good available diversion airfields enroute and no high msa's and a chat with engineering who have access to real time engine data the pilots can't see. I'd have a hard time criticizing the actions of this crew.
Last edited by Locked door; 3rd Sep 2011 at 16:09.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the situation could deteriorate, but only as far as the loss of the use of that engine which is not life threatening. However this engine stayed running and there wasn't any indication that it would do otherwise.
Given the infomation presented thus far, choosing to continue was a very puzzling decision.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: My main point is that if events can rapidly degenerate to a total loss of control
Hold on. Who said anything about a loss of control! This was a series of STATUS messages (see previous posts), nothing to do with control OR engine failure.
Did you previously work for the News of the World?
Hold on. Who said anything about a loss of control! This was a series of STATUS messages (see previous posts), nothing to do with control OR engine failure.
Did you previously work for the News of the World?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
understand risk
The assesment of risk is subjective. As I've said previously, I know what I would have done but that's not relevant. The risk was assessed by the crew on the day using information from various inputs and a decision was made.
I was never in possession of the necessary eloquence to ascribe to such a fold
exams 