How did they get the replacement engine to Guam?

Some of our friends on the Freight Dogs forum may be able to explain how that happened. :)

Diversion to Guam
Our flight from Narita to the Gold Coast (JQ12) was diverted on Sunday after the aircraft displayed an indicator message relating to oil pressure. The 787 landed safely in Guam (the nearest airport), and remains there while it’s inspected by our engineers. We arranged an alternative aircraft for our customers to continue their journey, and they arrived in the Gold Coast on Monday morning. Our Engineering team are currently working with engine manufacturer GE to replace the engine and understand what occurred. We expect the aircraft will be back in service by next week. Thank you to all involved.

For the avgeeks
Our Social Wrap provides insight in to what our customers say about us on social media. This week, it’s the avgeeks, plane spotters and aviation community that lit up social channels with the very rare departure of an Antonov An-124 aircraft from Melbourne Airport, which was taking a GEnx engine to Guam for our 787 (see story above). Our team also shared their photos of the exciting event on Yammer–see them here and here (thank you Stephen Capron).

Regarding the Etops question, I was under the impression that Etops was not simply a Manufacturer/ Airframe concern,but the Individual Operator had to demonstrate a satisfactory period of operating a particular Engine/ Airframe combination.

I recall when QF first started operating the A330 it was not Etops approved until those parameters had been satisfied...accordingly the A330 remained a domestic vehicle for a considerable period prior to being utilised Internationally. This despite the fact that the Engines on the A330 were Identical with those on the 767 which was happily plying the skies with 180 min Etops approval .

One can but wonder how this affects Jet* operation of the Dreamliner in these circumstances .

The IFSD rate for ETOPS is tracked at both the fleet level and the operator level - the operator level stuff being done by the local regulatory authority. Fleet level is pretty strict (although I recall a case where the engine manufacture petitioned to have one operator excluded from the fleet rate because the operator wasn't properly maintaining their engines and pretty much everyone who was paying attention knew it). Operator level stuff is more flexible - someone with a small fleet could go over the ETOPS limit due to a single fluke shutdown - often it includes agreements that if there is an IFSD the operator will demonstrate they've taken corrective action to insure they don't have another (which can get tricky if you can't figure out what caused the shutdown, which occasionally happens).
In addition, the 787 (also the A350) were certified for "early ETOPS" - basically more testing is done during the certification phase to demonstrate the ETOPS capability at EIS. This was originally done for the 777 (I was involved at the time, and we literally had to invent it as we went). Early ETOPS simplifies the ETOPS approval process for the individual operators, although they still need to present a plan acceptable to the local authorities before they can begin ETOPS operations.


BTW, the A330 engines were NOT identical to the 767 - they were higher thrust derivatives of the 767 engines.

Has anyone kept track of the problems Norwegian has had with their 787 fleet?

Many late or cancelled flights due to technical stuff. No inflight engine shutdowns yet - have they been lucky so far?

172driver, it's certainly pretty lonely down there. The southern oceans are certainly unpleasant, but the Med ain't so friendly either when it wants to get rough.

Judging by the number of times an aircraft operated properly under today's ETOPS regulations has ditched in the ogin due to engine failure (AFAIK, none), one would certainly say that the regulations work as intended.

Article says 320 stranded and the plane was a 787-8. Pardon me asking, but is Jetstar (which I know is a high density airline) really able to fit that many on this plane? If so, they are giving AC Rouge a run for their money on sardine service.

21C+314Y:

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Je...eing_787-8.php

Norwegian issues were mostly related to fuel pumps.

UA had a rash of incidents, mostly electrical if I remember correctly.

ANA has mostly engine management system and brake system issues. ANA stopped publishing details.

AI has been vocal from beginning, but was discounted as internal mx issues, mainly software, spoiler actuators and windshield cracks. There are unconfirmed rumors VT-ANI wingbox was reworked. AI also has very early revisions of GEnX, one frame with both faulty engines, lot went through rework, but GE has been very proactive.

BA had some of the weirdest issues. One IFSD.

Brunei had problems with both engines.

Keep in mind, none of these caused any flight safety issues. It is mostly heartburn and revenue loss for airlines.

Even though battery got most attention, I think software in general and spoiler actuator system are still the culprits. By the time it lands there are so many messages, line mx has to make sure is it a false warning (or) bad sensor (or) bad component and remediate.

Rest of the issues kind of settled.

Boy, that really is a slave ship. I'll never complain about my seating on United again.

Thank you tdracer, contributions like your's make me enjoying pprune again ��

I would hazard to guess that all 320 passengers consider the diversion as news.

Thanks Tdracer. Appreciate the input. 🤓

The Australian news papers are reporting that the cause of the engine shut down, and subsequent diversion, was due to an issue related to a transfer gearbox.

This is a link to the relevant article.

Seeing as you need a bloody Antonov or 747F to get a new donk to a stricken 787 as opposed to pretty much any cargo jet in existence for a gulfstream, that's not a great comparison.

Great posts as always tdracer, pleasure to read. Out of interest, can a 777F take a Trent 1000/GEnx or are you stuck with the 4 holers mentioned above?

A GEnx will fit in a 777F, but I think some disassembly may be necessary first. The GEnx is designed so the fan module can be easily removed (both to facilitate shipping and for repair/refurb). The fan on the GEnx-1B is actually slightly larger in diameter than the PW4000/112" so getting an intact engine through the 120" tall 777F cargo door would be tough.
I'm not as familiar with the Trent 1000 so I can't really comment.

Here's some shipping info on the Trent XWB engine (from VRR, the pallet manufacturer):

The engine stand that the Trent 1000 engine is shipped on is based on a 196x125 inch pallet. This is a non-standard size in the aviation cargo industry, but it can still be loaded onto some types of airplane. In this case, it’s often a B747 or B777 freighter aircraft. The engine, including the transport frame, just fits through the door of these planes, leaving us with only 1 inch of headroom to construct a solid and rigid pallet.

http://vrr-aviation.com/media/1624/p...54028170000000

http://vrr-aviation.com/media/1625/p...54028180000000

fwiw The A350 inlet cowl only has 3 inches clearance when going through a B744F nose door.

B787 was advertised as a low CASM P2P medium capacity long range aircraft to serve thin long routes. But neither its supply chain nor support network thought ahead. So B should warn airlines where they can take this crown jewel. Lufthansa restricted A320NEO ops to major Lufthansa Teknik centers until kinks are resolved.

Relief B744s were also able to ferry a spare engine.
Business Jet manufacturers are able to serve customers.
Even Twin Otters to South Pole are better prepared.

So lot of airlines purchased without reading the fine print that they may need stock 6 different windshields(multiple quantities) and a premium logistics contract with Volga-Dnepr or some other IL-76 operator at the least, or it will take 15 days for UTC to weave and bake a reverse thruster.