Norwegian 787 blows a donk in FCO
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOT almost had a dual engine failure on a 788 last year (LO-6506 Cancun Warsaw on Mar 23rd 2018). Lost one engine SW of Bermuda, decided to divert to KJFK instead of KMIA due to operational reasons (passenger visa). 2nd engine surged during the diversion. After landing at KJFK both engines had to be changed.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOT almost had a dual engine failure on a 788 last year (LO-6506 Cancun Warsaw on Mar 23rd 2018). Lost one engine SW of Bermuda, decided to divert to KJFK instead of KMIA due to operational reasons (passenger visa). 2nd engine surged during the diversion. After landing at KJFK both engines had to be changed.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
LOT almost had a dual engine failure on a 788 last year (LO-6506 Cancun Warsaw on Mar 23rd 2018). Lost one engine SW of Bermuda, decided to divert to KJFK instead of KMIA due to operational reasons (passenger visa). 2nd engine surged during the diversion. After landing at KJFK both engines had to be changed.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOT almost had a dual engine failure on a 788 last year (LO-6506 Cancun Warsaw on Mar 23rd 2018). Lost one engine SW of Bermuda, decided to divert to KJFK instead of KMIA due to operational reasons (passenger visa). 2nd engine surged during the diversion. After landing at KJFK both engines had to be changed.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
LOT internally clarified the definition of „nearest suitable airport“ afterwards.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had another 788 there that would have performed a scheduled flight JFK WAW. They cancelled that flight and transferred the pax on the Cancun flight airside to the other 788.
The pax on the JFK flight where rebooked. Being already in the US they had visas.
Operationally clever - safety wise very questionable.
The pax on the JFK flight where rebooked. Being already in the US they had visas.
Operationally clever - safety wise very questionable.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had another 788 there that would have performed a scheduled flight JFK WAW. They cancelled that flight and transferred the pax on the Cancun flight airside to the other 788.
The pax on the JFK flight where rebooked. Being already in the US they had visas.
Operationally clever - safety wise very questionable.
The pax on the JFK flight where rebooked. Being already in the US they had visas.
Operationally clever - safety wise very questionable.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, JFK surely wasn’t the nearest suitable airport.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOT incident
Interesting quote, supposedly in a letter by the LOT Safety Pilot, according to
AVHerald reporting on the LOT B787 incident
And another quote from the letter:
The acronym ETOPS Engines Turning Or People Swimming, long used tongue in cheek, almost became reality��
AVHerald reporting on the LOT B787 incident
From RR bulletins it is clear that the shut down of one engine dramatically increases the likelihood of the other engine failing.
As we all know while analyzing our case with the engine shut down on our flight from Cancun to Warsaw we were very close to serious trouble. The "good" engine has experienced 3 seconds of "ENGINE SURGE" which could have led to its shut down.
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 19th Aug 2019 at 19:22.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An ANA 787 had a double engine shutdown on landing in January this year. The engines would not restart and the aircraft had to be towed from the runway. It was suspected to have been caused by a software issue triggered by the manner in which reverse was engaged but was still being investigated last I heard. With FADEC, shouldn't the engines be protected from inappropriate inputs?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An ANA 787 had a double engine shutdown on landing in January this year. The engines would not restart and the aircraft had to be towed from the runway. It was suspected to have been caused by a software issue triggered by the manner in which reverse was engaged but was still being investigated last I heard. With FADEC, shouldn't the engines be protected from inappropriate inputs?
That is a different issue than being discussed. In the ANA case, the engines shutdown because of a software fault, not because they were damaged in any way
I'll venture the proposition, that when you're halfway across the pacific it doesn't really matter whether it's mechanical, electronic or software - the end result will be equally wet.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue will never happen in flight. It is connected to a protection system (TCMA) that will disable the engines when high forward thrust settings are selected instead of reverse. This system is only active on the ground and when selecting reverse thrust.
Does that not introduce a serious software dependency risk on top of any mechanical engine issues?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's exactly the opposite, sulfidation is bad, nasty stuff. Unlike oxidation in aluminum that provides a protective coating and longer life, sulfidation in superalloys shortens life causing premature cracking and component failure. Protective coatings have been devised to guard against sulfidation, but there are other factors that contribute to premature sulfidation failures in turbine blades and vanes. Here is a photo of sufidation attack on a superalloy where a crack has developed. Add stress and cycles to the equation and the component will crack and fail prematurely...
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That feature is only active when on the ground, but it is not limited to reverse thrust.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ETOPS restrictions had already been in work for some time before that event happened, and were not driven by that event. The biggest concern about that flight was the crew's decision not to divert to the nearest suitable airport.
Just like MCAS is only active at high AOA.
Until the AOA sensor is kaput.
So what happens when the WOW or RA or whatever single source B likes to use for critical systems breaks.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew’s decision made the situation worse, but the biggest concern was one engine failing and the other engine nearly failing.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the 787 TCMA, but on the 747-8 TCMA uses three radio altimeter and two WOW signals. At least three signals must indicate ground, with at least one each from the Radio Altimiter and WOW.