AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic
Why not replace pylon?
Why put a good engine on a compromised pylon? Engine and pylon will have to be removed at destination anyway. Then good engine and pylon will have to be reinstalled.
If there's any concern for wing integrity, inspection should be done before next takeoff.
The locals can set up a heated shelter over the affected area as was done in Iqaluit.
If there's any concern for wing integrity, inspection should be done before next takeoff.
The locals can set up a heated shelter over the affected area as was done in Iqaluit.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today the BEA has this
Les conditions de convoyage de l’avion vers un autre site en Europe sont en cours d’étude, afin qu’il puisse y être réparé et remis en service commercial par Air France.
A noter que devant la complexité logistique de ces différentes opérations, le calendrier prévisionnel s'étalera sur plusieurs semaines.
Airplane ferry to a European location, for repairs, is under study. Expect to take "weeks" [understood: before it is back in service].
I'm also curious, eventually, who gets the bill to cover loss of revenue?
Les conditions de convoyage de l’avion vers un autre site en Europe sont en cours d’étude, afin qu’il puisse y être réparé et remis en service commercial par Air France.
A noter que devant la complexité logistique de ces différentes opérations, le calendrier prévisionnel s'étalera sur plusieurs semaines.
Airplane ferry to a European location, for repairs, is under study. Expect to take "weeks" [understood: before it is back in service].
I'm also curious, eventually, who gets the bill to cover loss of revenue?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it that the word in the press "ballast" applies to more than just dead-weight balance but also covers the need to balance drag effects within the safe operational capabilities of the takeoff and flight.
I suspect that the pylon is structurally sound (no large rotor seizure effects) and that many of the tubes and wires will not be needed and just be discarded/capped. The complete pylon might be replaced after the ferry flight
I suspect that the pylon is structurally sound (no large rotor seizure effects) and that many of the tubes and wires will not be needed and just be discarded/capped. The complete pylon might be replaced after the ferry flight
The CoG issue can be compensated for with fuel and ballast and the missing drag should be well compensated for by the missing thrust.
The press release also mentions that the engine will be sent to the GE facility at Cardiff for further analysis once the onsite team has finished with it.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Goose Bay
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the pax, it was the airline's decision not to deplane them, there were in excess of 500 beds ready and waiting to be used if required.
The aircraft is currently parked in front of the former Luftwaffe hangar as there are no hangars big enough to wholly accommodate anything bigger than a DC-10.
Goose Bay handles trans atlantic diversions on a regular basis, nothing much different about this one (other than a slight deficiency in the propulsion department). The Lancaster that passed through on it's way to the UK a few years ago raised more interest locally than this.
The aircraft is currently parked in front of the former Luftwaffe hangar as there are no hangars big enough to wholly accommodate anything bigger than a DC-10.
Goose Bay handles trans atlantic diversions on a regular basis, nothing much different about this one (other than a slight deficiency in the propulsion department). The Lancaster that passed through on it's way to the UK a few years ago raised more interest locally than this.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the AA DC10 wasn't that its engines had been changed with a forklift, it was that instead of disconnecting the engine from the pylon to remove it from the wing, the mechanics (or AA maintenance manuals) thought it easier to remove the pylon from the wing and lower both it and the engine together to the ground. Another complicating factor was that this operation spanned two work shifts and while the engine/pylon piece was being supported by the forklift overnight, the lift lost some hydraulic pressure and left more stress on the partial attachment of the pylon to the wing than was acceptable.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main issue is wing flutter. Missing (part of) an engine will significantly change the eigenfrequencies of the wing and could lead to all sorts of nasty bending and torsion problems in flight.
The CoG issue can be compensated for with fuel and ballast and the missing drag should be well compensated for by the missing thrust.
The CoG issue can be compensated for with fuel and ballast and the missing drag should be well compensated for by the missing thrust.
Although in theory it would 'might' be possible to 'paper certify' a missing engine configuration that would surely cost a lot more (time and money) than using a real engine as planned.
Although in theory it would 'might' be possible to 'paper certify' a missing engine configuration that would surely cost a lot more (time and money) than using a real engine as planned.
That said, loss of the engine and recovery to a landing imposed by an emergency would be considered quite differently than a planned ferry flight without engine and pylon.
Last edited by twochai; 12th Oct 2017 at 16:05.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 71
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BEA website:
https://www.bea.aero/en/investigatio...tion-11102017/
https://www.bea.aero/en/investigatio...tion-11102017/
BEA Information - 11/10/2017
This is a courtesy translation by the BEA of this Information. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French is the work or reference.
Press Release n°4
It has been decided to remove the damaged engine in Goose Bay (Canada) in order to preserve its integrity for future investigations.
This operation will be carried out by teams from Air France and Airbus before sending the engine to Cardiff in a General Electric facility where the BEA teams will then go to continue their analyzes.
The conveying conditions of the aircraft to another site in Europe are being studied, so that it can be repaired and put back into commercial service by Air France.
It should be noted that, given the logistical complexity of these various operations, the forecasting schedule will last several weeks.
The search and recovery of detached components of the damaged engine is still ongoing in Greenland.
This is a courtesy translation by the BEA of this Information. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French is the work or reference.
Press Release n°4
It has been decided to remove the damaged engine in Goose Bay (Canada) in order to preserve its integrity for future investigations.
This operation will be carried out by teams from Air France and Airbus before sending the engine to Cardiff in a General Electric facility where the BEA teams will then go to continue their analyzes.
The conveying conditions of the aircraft to another site in Europe are being studied, so that it can be repaired and put back into commercial service by Air France.
It should be noted that, given the logistical complexity of these various operations, the forecasting schedule will last several weeks.
The search and recovery of detached components of the damaged engine is still ongoing in Greenland.
I guess also installing a dead engine allows the situation to be replicated (if it was not already done for certification), and crews trained, of a 3-engined takeoff, not only in the sim but on the Airbus prototypes at Toulouse.
No expert, but presumably start the roll with the two inboard engines, then feed in some extra power from the remaining outboard engine once the rudder becomes effective.
No expert, but presumably start the roll with the two inboard engines, then feed in some extra power from the remaining outboard engine once the rudder becomes effective.
To paraphrase: Various options for getting the aircraft back to Europe are being considered (i.e. a decision to 3 engine ferry it back has not been made). Timescale for all of this is several weeks.
Good point - all of the 3-engined-ferry speculation appears to be based on the Reuters article from a couple of days ago, quoting unidentified BEA sources.
Given that the aircraft won't be flying anywhere unless and until it has been established that there is no airframe damage that would affect the safety of the flight, that doesn't rule out fitting a new, operational engine (and probably a new pylon) to allow a 4-engined ferry.
Strictly speaking, provided the measures taken to recover the aircraft to France don't compromise the investigation, how and when it's done is none of the BEA's business, it's up to Air France, Airbus and the regulators.
Given that the aircraft won't be flying anywhere unless and until it has been established that there is no airframe damage that would affect the safety of the flight, that doesn't rule out fitting a new, operational engine (and probably a new pylon) to allow a 4-engined ferry.
Strictly speaking, provided the measures taken to recover the aircraft to France don't compromise the investigation, how and when it's done is none of the BEA's business, it's up to Air France, Airbus and the regulators.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FROM WSJ
goes on
By Andy Pasztor
Oct. 12, 2017 11:18 p.m. ET 0 COMMENTS
U.S. air-safety regulators have issued an emergency order requiring airlines to inspect engines on roughly 120 Airbus EADSY 0.25% A380 superjumbo jets world-wide, prompted by an engine that violently broke apart during an Air France... flight at the end of September.
The safety directive issued Thursday by the Federal Aviation Administration covers all engines manufactured for Airbus SE A380s by a joint venture comprising General Electric Co. GE .... and United Technologies Corp.’s UTX ... Pratt & Whitney unit. The partnership supplies engines for roughly 60 percent of the global A380 fleet, with Emirates Airline operating the majority of the affected four-engine, double-decker aircraft.
The move by the FAA, which certified the engine as did European regulators 10 years ago, requires inspections to start as quickly as two weeks, depending on the number of trips they have flown. The directive follows a nonbinding service bulletin issued by the engine alliance.
Oct. 12, 2017 11:18 p.m. ET 0 COMMENTS
U.S. air-safety regulators have issued an emergency order requiring airlines to inspect engines on roughly 120 Airbus EADSY 0.25% A380 superjumbo jets world-wide, prompted by an engine that violently broke apart during an Air France... flight at the end of September.
The safety directive issued Thursday by the Federal Aviation Administration covers all engines manufactured for Airbus SE A380s by a joint venture comprising General Electric Co. GE .... and United Technologies Corp.’s UTX ... Pratt & Whitney unit. The partnership supplies engines for roughly 60 percent of the global A380 fleet, with Emirates Airline operating the majority of the affected four-engine, double-decker aircraft.
The move by the FAA, which certified the engine as did European regulators 10 years ago, requires inspections to start as quickly as two weeks, depending on the number of trips they have flown. The directive follows a nonbinding service bulletin issued by the engine alliance.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/ -- http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu..._Emergency.pdf
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ -- https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/2017-...S-2017-21-51_1
I suppose the Engine Alliance Alert Service Bulletin is not public?
P.S.: Andy Pasztor writes in the WSJ and on Fox Business: "requires inspections to start as quickly as two weeks, depending on the number of trips they have flown". "start" clearly should read "be completed". Reuters gets it right.
P.P.S.: From the Andy Pasztor article:
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ -- https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/2017-...S-2017-21-51_1
DATE: October 12, 2017
AD #: 2017-21-51
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-21-51 is sent to owners and operators of Engine Alliance (EA) Model GP7200 series turbofan engines.
Background
This emergency AD was prompted by an uncontained engine failure that occurred on an Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engine. The failed engine had 3,527 cycles since new, which is a relatively high cycle engine. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the fan hub, which could lead to an uncontained release of the fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
[...]
(g) Required Actions
(1) Perform a visual inspection of the fan hub, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 1.B., 1.C., and 1.D., of EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP-A72-383, Revision 1, dated October 12, 017, at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) For fan hubs with 3,500 cycles since new (CSN) or more, inspect within 2 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For fan hubs with 2,000 CSN or greater and less than 3,500 CSN, inspect within 5 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(iii) For fan hubs with less than 2,000 CSN, inspect within 8 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(2) If defects or damage to the fan hub are found that are outside of serviceable limits, remove the hub from service and replace with a part that has been inspected and found airworthy in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight. Serviceable limits are defined in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1 of EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2017.
(h) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, dated October 7, 2017.
[..]
AD #: 2017-21-51
Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-21-51 is sent to owners and operators of Engine Alliance (EA) Model GP7200 series turbofan engines.
Background
This emergency AD was prompted by an uncontained engine failure that occurred on an Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engine. The failed engine had 3,527 cycles since new, which is a relatively high cycle engine. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the fan hub, which could lead to an uncontained release of the fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
[...]
(g) Required Actions
(1) Perform a visual inspection of the fan hub, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 1.B., 1.C., and 1.D., of EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP-A72-383, Revision 1, dated October 12, 017, at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) For fan hubs with 3,500 cycles since new (CSN) or more, inspect within 2 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For fan hubs with 2,000 CSN or greater and less than 3,500 CSN, inspect within 5 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(iii) For fan hubs with less than 2,000 CSN, inspect within 8 weeks of the effective date of this AD.
(2) If defects or damage to the fan hub are found that are outside of serviceable limits, remove the hub from service and replace with a part that has been inspected and found airworthy in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight. Serviceable limits are defined in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1 of EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2017.
(h) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, dated October 7, 2017.
[..]
P.S.: Andy Pasztor writes in the WSJ and on Fox Business: "requires inspections to start as quickly as two weeks, depending on the number of trips they have flown". "start" clearly should read "be completed". Reuters gets it right.
P.P.S.: From the Andy Pasztor article:
The same family of engines experienced an unrelated safety problem five years ago, prompting a previous FAA airworthiness directive.
In November 2012, an Emirates A380 departing Sydney had an engine shut down on its own at about 9,000 feet. The plane returned to the airport without any passengers injured. But a subsequent investigation by Australian authorities revealed that unexpectedly high temperatures stemming from a poorly designed nozzle resulted in significant internal damage.
Two years earlier, the engine manufacturer had issued a service bulletin calling for a replacement of the suspect parts with new, more durable components. Following the incident, the FAA issued a mandatory directive requiring inspections and removal of damaged parts.
In November 2012, an Emirates A380 departing Sydney had an engine shut down on its own at about 9,000 feet. The plane returned to the airport without any passengers injured. But a subsequent investigation by Australian authorities revealed that unexpectedly high temperatures stemming from a poorly designed nozzle resulted in significant internal damage.
Two years earlier, the engine manufacturer had issued a service bulletin calling for a replacement of the suspect parts with new, more durable components. Following the incident, the FAA issued a mandatory directive requiring inspections and removal of damaged parts.
Last edited by Musician; 13th Oct 2017 at 06:28. Reason: Links to WSJ, Fox Business, Reuters, EASA
Cracks or other defects...
The WSJ link above doesn't work for me, but I did find this on Reuters...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1CI0CI
Edit - it appears Musician beat me to it...
The FAA said the directive, an interim measure, was prompted by the failure of the fan hub on the affected engine on the Air France aircraft.
“An investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional rulemaking if final action is identified,” it said in a statement.
Depending on the number of flight cycles, the inspections must be performed within the next two to eight weeks
“An investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional rulemaking if final action is identified,” it said in a statement.
Depending on the number of flight cycles, the inspections must be performed within the next two to eight weeks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1CI0CI
Edit - it appears Musician beat me to it...
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer, I edited my post a lot after posting (all those postscripts), so likely you actually "beat" me, without me noticing.
Last edited by Musician; 13th Oct 2017 at 10:19.
Interesting that we have an AD so early in the game - is this just a precautionary move or can we surmise that they found something significant examining the remains of the engine ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the AD: "3527 = relatively high cycle engine"
This below could be interesting (?)
http://www.iba.aero/wp-content/uploa...e-May-2017.pdf
This below could be interesting (?)
http://www.iba.aero/wp-content/uploa...e-May-2017.pdf
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB update
UPDATE: TSB Report#A17A0063: F-HPJE, an Airbus 380-800 aircraft operated by Air France, was conducting flight AFR066 from Paris/Charles de Gaulle, France (LFPG) to Los Angeles, CA (KLAX) with 24 crew members and 497 passengers on board. At 1349 UTC while in cruise at FL370, the flight crew declared a MAYDAY when fan and inlet components of the number 4 engine (Engine Alliance GP7270) separated from the engine. The flight crew shut the engine down and diverted to Goose Bay, NL (CYYR) where a landing was carried out without further incident on Runway 26 at 1543 UTC with ARFF standing by. Substantial damage to the number 4 engine inlet section was visible, as well as visible damage to slats and fairings inboard and outboard of the number 4 engine. A runway inspection discovered debris on the arrival runway, which needed to be removed before the runway could be reopened. The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada, Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) of France, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the USA deployed investigators to CYYR. Advisors from Air France, Airbus and Engine Alliance (specialists from Pratt & Whitney USA and General Electric) also travelled to CYYR to assist. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information was used to confirm the area of the engine fan separation to be approximately 150 kilometers southeast of Paamiut, Greenland (territory of Denmark). Danish authorities delegated the investigation to the BEA.