SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

However, I'm thinking that an engine change at the base is normally followed by a separate full blown test flight before the aircraft is released to revenue operations.

Would Swiss do a functional check flight near Frobay, land and then put on fuel for a ferry out? Or, can they head out over the pond, do the checks and if something doesn't look good, visit Narsarsuaq?

If every aircraft required an air test after an engine change, the world's skies would be black with aircraft flying around going nowhere.

[wiggy]

Airbubba

Wouldn't an ETOPS/EROPS plane need some sort of flight test before taking it over water? Or, could the test be done on the trip to ZRH with the ferry crew and the next leg could be a revenue sector?

Every circumstance is different I guess but I do know if we've had an straightforward engine change on our ETOPS type the "check" basically involves getting airborne and can be considered done if all is OK before entering the ETOPS segment of the route (if there is one) , then a quick write up in the tech log and a suitable message is ACARS'd to base...that is it.

I've done a handful post engine change and there's nothing Yeageresque about the check, no slam checks/ engine acceleration checks or anything, it's basically a question of does the engine work ok for takeoff, climb and initial cruise, so FWIW though probably not relevant in this case it can and often is done on a revenue sector immediately after an engine change.

[BluSdUp]

Frobisher to homebase non ETOPS?

Airbubba.
Looks to me they came in over Greenland north of Narsasuaq with no ETOPS required. Returning I shure as hell stay away from that place.
Take route a litle north and Søndre Strømfjord is Your safe haven then Keflavik and Bergen.
Narsasuaq is lovely if you are on fire with a 777, but if not, DONT.
Did calibration flights in a Beech 200 there and the rest of the coast up to Disco Bay, fantastic. summer of 1994.
Remember buzzing Eric The Reds homestead on final,,,

Any problem on takeoff head for Gander?
Anyway, in a few days we see.

[Airbubba]

Thanks for the insight wiggy. Now that you mention it, I've had some sort of maintenance note requesting a procedure be done before going ETOPS to raise the dispatch to 180 minute rule. Since we were already airborne, we got a redispatch for the 180 minute alternates.

Also, now that I look at it, Frobay may be far enough north that you could get to ZRH on a Blue Spruce routing without ETOPS if needed.

[wiggy]

Airbubba
Yep, UK/EASA rules for us but it's similar, if the ETOPS check is required you effectively depart using the 60 minute rule. If the check fails you have to replan to stay within 60 min (for a minor fail) or RTB (something more significant) if you pass you're ok for 180 min.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by BluSdUp

Narsasuaq is lovely if you are on fire with a 777, but if not, DONT.

I've had Nars and Sondrestorm in the paperwork since the late 1980's but sadly, I've never landed either place.

[Anilv]

The two engines in the hangar side-by-side are probably having some ancillaries swapped over.

At based you would have what is called a 'QEC kit' (quick-engine change) which is basically a duplicate set of ancillaries which will be fitted onto the space engine while the broken engine is being removed., thus saving a few minutes.

[YRP]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

If every aircraft required an air test after an engine change, the world's skies would be black with aircraft flying around going nowhere.

Aircraft engines might just be slightly more reliable than that, perhaps not _quite_ that many engine changes going on.

[DaveReidUK]

I know, I know, my parents must have told me a million times not to exaggerate.

Joking aside, in all my years in aircraft maintenance the only air tests I can recall were a couple for troubleshooting a hard-to-reproduce problem, and one that I hitched a ride on following a horizontal stabilizer replacement. That one was a good test of your faith in your workmanship .

[matkat]

The only check flights I ever done were end of lease/redelivery and when more than one engine had been changed.

[JammedStab]

A few thoughts,

YFB is not difficult to land in under the conditions that day. ILS to a decent length runway into wind and a fairly large area to park.

If they shut the aircraft down in the cold, they would definitely want to drain the water to avoid possible damage from frozen water in pipes etc. But there is a good chance that it will be kept warm.

Somebody mentioned about why they didn't go to Vancouver which is 1 hour away. It is more like 4 hours away. That is why. You are required to go to the nearest suitable airport. Nearest time-wise that is which is not necessarily, your ETOPS alternate. That being said, the PIC can determine what is suitable and what is not, and a legal alternate may not be suitable. I have seen an ETOPS alternate where the runway conditions were 3/3/3 and no plowing at the present time. Performance calculations(airport is not even in the performance database and has to be manually created) showed that you had to dump to max landing weight and were just barely able to land within the limits. Legal but not suitable in my opinion. I do know of one airline overflying a suitable remote airport with a twin having shut down an engine on directions from the company. The government agency wasn't happy but the boss was.

Landing at a remote airport like this does present some logistical difficulties including the cold at this time of year and getting an engine to location. I remember a United 777 diverting to YZF due to an engine problem. Took two weeks to get the plane out of there. As the engines get bigger, so do the size of the aircraft required to fly them. C130's are fine for a 767 engine but the GE90 requires something really big. UA used a 747 to fly their replacement engine, but, YZF had no Main Deck loader so they flew it to Edmonton and trucked it up to YZF in the middle of the winter including crossing a winter time ice road across the Mackenzie River. United has their own group of specialists for this kind of situation, who I'm sure were not happy when it went down to -38 on the night of the engine change.

I have done the cargo flying of a replacement engine, a CFM 56 for an A340 over to Hawaii. Usually you wait around for the old engine to be removed which may already be part way there, as much as possible by the time you arrive with the replacement. In our case, we were out of there the next day before they even had the new engine up and operating which is a bad idea on the part of the airline as a situation may arise where they need parts off the old engine. But the airline doesn't like to pay for the expensive waiting time of the freighters sometimes. And seeing as your freighter may be the only one around, the charges may be steep. So we left early before the engine was up and running and when we got back home after a long expensive flight, we found out that they had problems with the replacement engine(electrical stuff) and couldn't start it. So we did another ferry flight back to Hawaii with a new replacement engine. Heard GE foot the bill for that one.

I wonder if there is an insurance policy available for this kind of situation.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Jammed Stab:
"Somebody mentioned about why they didn't go to Vancouver which is 1 hour away. It is more like 4 hours away."

For the record, I thought the same as you. In fact, we may both be presbyopic? The poster wrote YYR (Goose Bay), but I also misread it as YVR (Vancouver). When I eventually noticed my mistake, I estimated Goose Bay was about an extra 90 mins at S/E speed form overhead Iqaluit, which would have been passed on the way. But I don't think the poster was in fact advocating going there, and I certainly wouldn't.

[A. Muse]

I wonder if there is an insurance policy available for this kind of situation.

It's the same as any insurance requirements, provided it is a risk, and not a certainty there will be a rate for the risk. Whether you want to pay the going rate is the decision you (or the bean counters) have to make.

Odd risks like this would usually end up with specialist underwriters at Lloyds of London

[davidjpowell]

This is going to cost someone a pretty penny presumably?

Landing fee's.
Fuel to fly A330 retrieval flight.
Compensation for A330 cancelled ex New York.
Compensation for 777 delayed/re-routed passengers.
1 x engine.
1x Anatov 124 Hire (query - will they need it again to retrieve the old engine.. presumably not scrapped?)
Engineers + equipment eg tent
When repaired - getting crew on-site
Fuel to fly plane to somewhere useful...

[twochai]

YFB is not difficult to land in under the conditions that day.

It is informative to note in the still photos of the approach the Trailing Edge Right rudder angle on the Triple, even down to the flare. He was carrying significant power on the RH engine all the way but obviously had Vref nailed as the a/c floated very little. Possibly an Autoland?

Nice work, Swiss..

[Chu Chu]

I wonder if anyone has realistic figures for this, but if the chance of an engine failure on a given flight is one in 100,000, and the chance of a single fault failing both engines is one in a billion, this would mean that one of every 10,000 engine failures is a dual failure. In that scenario, when the left engine failed, the odds of the right engine failing would immediately jump by a factor of 10 (from one in 100,000 to one in 10,000).

[BluSdUp]

Normal cost.

If you run an airline, this will happen. Its part of normal cost.
I suspect a lot of pilots want to help the company by selecting a convenient airport.
Murphy, and the local CAA dont see it that way.

Firstly, in this case the cost is big, regardless. Need an Antonov, no hangar big enough, need to divert a A330 or bigger asap and feed out their pax anyway. Bla Bla Bla.
At the end, Frobisher Gander Goose Søndrestrøm or Churchill for that matter, no one has a spare laying around in a big hangar.

THE RISK of getting creative on one engine up north has only one outcome if the last one gives in.
And Yes, the statistical chances are slim. For certification.In real life much higher.
In real life we, together with Murphy come up with ever more ways of going
gliding 101.

I repeat myself: , land at the nearest suitable( or ASAP i think AB says).
gives the commander a direct order.
What company thinks is not remotely interesting, but can be deadly in delay of heading for a safe haven.
Up north you are always running a" hallo, goodbye list "of ASAP divert, that beeing for medical, unruley pax, smoke, fire, engine fail etc.
There is no ideal end to the story. Just a safe landing.
This was the ideal divert.
If it gets to cold , Boys , head over to the Antonov, they still have anti frezze
100 proof
Nostrovija!!

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by Chu Chu

I wonder if anyone has realistic figures for this, but if the chance of an engine failure on a given flight is one in 100,000, and the chance of a single fault failing both engines is one in a billion, this would mean that one of every 10,000 engine failures is a dual failure. In that scenario, when the left engine failed, the odds of the right engine failing would immediately jump by a factor of 10 (from one in 100,000 to one in 10,000).

I'm not rightly sure I follow your math(s). Aren't you mixing independent and dependent probabilities in your analysis?

And speaking of landing up North, FAA regs require a passenger recovery plan in the ops manual for polar ops:

Passenger recovery plan. Revised regulation 14 CFR 121.135 requires that for all ETOPS flying beyond 180 minutes (excluding 207-minute ETOPS, as explained above), and for all polar operations, the air carrier must develop a plan to ensure the well-being of passengers and crew members at each approved en route alternate airport listed in this carrier's operations specifications. Because challenging alternate airports tend to be found in the most remote parts of the world, passenger recovery plans are no longer required for ETOPS below 180 minutes.

This passenger recovery plan must address the safety and comfort, in terms of facilities and accommodations, of stranded passengers at the diversion airport. As its name suggests, it must also address their prompt retrieval from the airport.

Polar operations also require passenger recovery plans, as codified in this rulemaking's polar policy. Initially implemented as an FAA policy letter in 2001, this polar policy also requires diversion airport planning, another key ETOPS concept. Despite these similarities, however, polar operations are distinct from ETOPS because North and South Polar operations entail unique requirements, such as special onboard equipment and a fuel freeze strategy.

AERO - The New FAA Etops Rule

Again, I presume there is something similar in the European regs.

[oliver2002]

It seems they did have to dump some fuel as they were diverting to YFB. The airfield scrambled to clear the runway, but couldn't do a complete job in time, so the landing was done on the partially cleared runway.
Another interesting angle to the prefect landing is that Swiss hired/transferred their ARJ flight crew to the 777 ops as the existing A330/340 wanted wage hikes. The horror scenario presented by the union in the press after this decision was 'imagine a RJ pilot having to deal with an emergency over the atlantic'

[efcop]

Merged unions

this was two years ago and the topic has since become obsolete as the unions have merged.