B787 diverts do LPLA due ENG problem
 

For those who have FB account,Lajes Rescue Control Center page :

https://www.facebook.com/rescuecoord...39399766186579

Basically it says 787 shut down one engine, and all the SAR staff&devices put on high alert due to a probable ditching at sea. (Wich thankfully didnt occur).

Here´s a pic hours ago:

http://newsavia.com/boeing-787-8-dre...rea-das-lajes/

Love this comment: "Look how the display shows Thomson 157 as a 'quadrimotor'!"

And another: "This is a 787, the first visit of this model to the Azores!" :D

This will be the second safety landing of G-TUIE in less than a week. The previous one was on 30 July on a flight from EMA to CUN (TOM644) where G-TUIE after 7 hours and 20 minutes in the air returned and made a safe landing at MAN. Maybe Thomson too has got one of those B788 lemons?

Very funny jolihokistix :hmm:

Hope they enjoy the stop-over in Lajes. I have had many memorable nights there in the past.

411
 

I had a few nights there, but can't say I remember many of them !

Which engine/FADEC version is on this aircraft?
Would the high-alt icing restrictions apply?
Were there Cbs on route?

General Electric Engines are fitted to the Thomson Dreamliner Fleet.

The "placed on high alert due to probable ditching at sea" interests me... I'm guessing this would be because of the likelihood of the other engine packing in rather than not being able to make it on one engine?

Sensationalising or near miss?

Sensationalising

787 Engine shut down
 

Mods: Previous thread on the recent 787 Engine shut down, moved to spotters corner !! ???
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...ml#post8595079

Relatively new aircraft, recent ETOPS approval, technical failure or other; surely there must be some professional safety interest.

Add to that some background problems with the engine (on 747-8)
Three engines damaged during 747-8F ice encounter - 8/22/2013 - Flight Global

Which resulted in an airworthiness restriction for 747-8 and 787
GEnx icing issue prompts 747-8, 787 restriction, route withdrawals - 11/24/2013 - Flight Global

and a potential link with similar threat conditions (ice crystal icing), the same as AF447 (or have we short memories) … …
and a rumour of concern about the other engine.

787 Engine shut down … Safety 1 to Safety 2
 

The previous attempt to raise this issue – as below, has also been parked in spotters corner. Please afford the curtesy of explaining why.
Are events to be dismissed summarily at a Mod’s whim, without further consideration?
How might we know if the event is ‘Pprune newsworthy’ without first understanding the situation?

Is this a prejudgement of ‘only a minor incident’ or an incident not involving sensational graphic content; a choice which degrads Pprune ‘Rumours and News’ to tabloid content? No Disaster, Death, or Destruction, no opportunity to allocate error, blame and train; is the media appetite such that we do not wish to discuss underlying professional issues which might help us to safer operation.

Current levels of safety are very good, yet in order to improve new approaches are required; e.g. Safety 1 to Safety 2. One aspect of this involves looking at normal operations, what goes well, including the successes from minor events. If this is a ‘minor’ event, then let this be understood and shared so we might celebrate the success, learn from it and employ the activities as best practice.

We have a professional duty to improve; spotters might only wish log the event and park it as a statistic.


Mods: Previous thread on the recent 787 Engine shut down moved to spotters corner !! ???
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...ml#post8595079

Relatively new aircraft, recent ETOPS approval, technical failure or other; surely there must be some professional safety interest.

Add to that some background problems with the engine (on 747-8)
Three engines damaged during 747-8F ice encounter - 8/22/2013 - Flight Global

Which resulted in an airworthiness restriction for 747-8 and 787
GEnx icing issue prompts 747-8, 787 restriction, route withdrawals - 11/24/2013 - Flight Global

and a potential link with similar threat conditions (ice crystal icing), the same as AF447 (or have we short memories) … … and a rumour of concern about the other engine.

Your very well expressed post is by itself enlightening, and of course the folks at Boeing have caused no little attention to be focused on their Dreamliner(trademark).

Perfectly sensible and well reasoned at least to me. Obviously not so important to the anointed ones around here.....be careful with your questions of their operating decisions, which so often seem to be like a game of rock-paper-scissors:8

Safetypee


It's been over 14 hours since the original post, so far we have a blog post (that the link doesn't work) and a facebook post. Nothing at all in the media (or elsewhere) - this for an airplane that the media has jumped on every single anomaly as if the 787 was the biggest deathtrap since Auschwitz.:ugh:


Isn't your BS detector buzzing even a little?

tdracer; are you suggesting this didn't really happen?
avherald has a photo of the aircraft on the ground at Laje, details of which engine failed, the cause of the failure (low engine oil pressure) and even details of the B767 sent from Manchester to collect the passengers.

Try this one which seems to have made it heavily edited through the burying process.

Trans-Atlantic Thomson flight makes emergency landing on Portugal?s Azores islands - The Portugal News

Quote: "The plane, carrying 288 passengers, mostly British nationals, was en route from the Dominican Republic to Manchester when the emergency landing was requested. The twin-engine aircraft touched down at Lajes at 4.13am Lisbon time. The passengers were later flown to Manchester on a replacement aircraft at 12.36pm. Portuguese rescue services told Lusa News Agency the incident was the result of technical problems recorded on the plane."

Well said safetypee.

Given the amount of publicity given to yesterday's Qatar incident, I'm amazed that the passengers involved in the diversion haven't been in touch with the media, especially given that the same aircraft appears to have been involved in a similar incident within the previous 48 hours.

Thomson Airways Boeing 787-800, registration G-TUIE performing flight BY-157
 

On 5th August G-TUIE 787 only delivered in July apparently. Shut down engine (GEnx) due to low oil pressure, FL410 550nm west of Terceira Island (Portugal). Landed @ Terceira's Lajes airport about 90mins later.
Engine going to be replaced!

Already posted here: http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...g-problem.html

Not one of the world's great night stops it must be said.........:(

Ah, apologies hadn't seen.

QUOTE: "Engine going to be replaced

If it should only turn out to be an oil pump problem or a leaking oil tube then there'll be no need to change the engine. Swapping out engines is usually a last resort fix due to cost and time.

Depends how long its been windmilling in flight after shutdown with no positive oil pressure.

Routing from the Dominican Republic to Manchester; was this flight under ETOPS rules?
If so, not for ETOPS bashing, but what lessons could be learnt; location of malfunction, distance / time taken to diversion?
UK MOR, UK AAIB?

td, it’s OK to retain loyalty to a product, location, etc, by don’t confuse loyalty with safety. My gripes are with the Mods, not products, operators or pilots.

Guidance for high reliability organisations:- pay attention to small events, also defer to expertise.
This event appears to have a successful (safe) outcome … well done crew, operator, et al.

Engines are not replaced after windmilling for prolonged periods on the ground...no positive oil pressure here either.

rolling20 thanks for the update – location and time with engine shutdown (90min) – ETOPS.
The tech problem is reported to be due to oil pressure / oil filter.
Presumably low oil pressure would at least be an amber alert probably resulting in an engine shutdown. However, does the B787 have inflight monitoring for a clogged oil filer available to the crew as is implied elsewhere. If so what type of indication or combination of indications would result in a shut down?
Alternatively are we entering an era of remote in-flight monitoring (Boeing / GE ground stations) where advice might be offered to the crew?

This appears to be the second ‘oil’ event during ETOPS - United routing Tokyo to Denver diverted to Seattle (June).

safetypee
 

Could this be the first B787 in flight shut down?

No, there has been at least one previous IFSD, involving a JAL aircraft, also GE-powered, in March of this year.

Thanks Dave. The United diversion was reported as a shutdown, so that’s a total of three, two of which have been on ETOPS and appear to have a common cause.

Safetypee
OK, some humble pie on my part. When I read the original post I was curious, but the follow on "the SAR staff&devices put on high alert due to a probable ditching at sea. (Wich thankfully didnt occur)." basically did a tilt on my BS meter. I work GEnx - primary concern being the -2B on the 747-8, but minimal differences between the -2B on the 747 and the -1B on the 787 mean we communicate rather freely. By the end of the day Tuesday nobody I'd checked with had heard anything about the incident. Combined with multiple negative web searches, and the blatant sensationalism of the Facebook post, I was honestly wondering how much of the rest was based on fact.
That all changed overnight. Yes, there was a precautionary GEnx-1B shutdown due to low oil pressure and diversion to the Azores. Appears to have been a gearbox problem, and not the first.
But that still means that the shutdown rate of the GEnx-1B remains over two times better than the requirement for 330 minute ETOPS - three shutdowns in ~750k hours (FWIW, the GEnx-2B is even better). It's quite simply the best EIS shutdown rate I've ever seen, and I've been around this for 37 years.
Given the press treatment that the 787 has received, I hope you can understand how I may be a bit defensive, especially when seeing posts such as "the SAR high alert due to a probable ditching at sea." :rolleyes:

If you mean the June 2013 event, I haven't seen any confirmation that it involved an IFSD.

Dave,
It would seem the Canadian TSB reported that an engine was indeed shut down by the crew, following an "oil filter indication".

Thanks. When I saw that on AvHerald, I looked but couldn't find any info on the TSB website.

I have now, though: CADORS: Report

United, Boeing and GE seem to have done a pretty good job of keeping the shutdown out of the media, referring to it simply as an "oil filter issue".

td, thank you, and for the additional information and clarification, particularly the rates and differences between engines.

Are you able to answer aspects of the question at # 28.
My interest is in the extent of information available to the crew and levels of alerting. Particularly the availability of external assistance – real time reporting / monitoring, which might change/aid crew perspective or complexity in decision making, not only for the 777 but any aircraft with such capabilities. (Concepts of ‘Flt Eng on the ground’, or technological decision aiding.)

e.g. simple cases avoiding additional information – vibration etc
Old systems had engine oil low pressure Red Warning (cross check gauge) = shutdown
Latterly this is supplemented by an Amber Alert, where if the gauge is not in red zone = monitor / idle
In both cases oil-filter clogged (pressure drop across filter) was only available to maintenance, but what might the situation be if crews have access to the filter information, or more.

Modern aircraft appear to have much more information available, to whom, and in what circumstances. Who (or what system) makes the decision of what to display to pilots and who recommends what the action should be. (cf Alaska MD 80 where external advice may not have helped).

This one made it into the mainstream.
Thomson Airways Boeing Dreamliner emergency landing at Azores military base after engine shuts down - Manchester Evening News

Dave,
Here's another one, from the same source:
JAL flight JA829J Mrch 8th 2014, en route from Tokyo, between Honolulu and San Francisco suffered "dropping oil pressure" and had to limp 930 miles back to Honolulu on one engine.

I don't remember anything specific about the United diversion - I know they had a -1B shutdown previously due to a gearbox failure but I don't recall if it's the same one.


The initial information on the Thompson shutdown was a suspected gearbox fault that resulted in a loss of oil pressure (there reported was still plenty of oil when the landed so it wasn't a leak as such). To early to know if it's the same gearbox fault as the previous shutdown. Us 747-8 types don't pay that much attention to the -1B gearbox because that is one part of the engine that is significantly different between the -1B and -2B (due to those two 300 kva generators on the -1B).


On the early FADEC engines (PW2000, PW4000/94", CF6-80C2) the FADEC didn't do much more than run the engine. The latest generation of FADEC does most of the engine monitoring as well - fuel and oil systems, filter delta pressure, engine vibe, etc. Compared to the older systems, where a filter bypass indication was a simple switch, letting the FADEC do it means actual monitoring of the delta pressure with dual channel redundancy (on the older engines, we had a similar number of shutdowns due to false oil filter bypass indications as due to real events). Oil pressure, temp, and quantity are displayed on EICAS, and there is a popup indication if the pressure or temp is outside the normal range.


On the GEnx the real time oil and fuel filter delta P is available on the flight deck, but the pilots are not instructed to go look at it (it requires pull up a specific maintenance page). Rather we have 'full fight data' downloads that allow maintenance to monitor the condition of the filters and plan maintenance accordingly. We also set maintenance messages filters that are getting closer to bypass but still have some life left - again letting them plan appropriate maintenance.

Yes, that's the one I referred to in post #30.