Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

777/GE90 Emergency AD

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

777/GE90 Emergency AD

Old 1st Oct 2006, 18:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Andalucia
Posts: 728
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
777/GE90 Emergency AD

New Emergency AD http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument
Wodrick is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2006, 21:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
... scary...

J.V.
jettison valve is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2006, 22:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, the FAA are right and truly concerned, hence the emergency airworthiness directive.
Engine rollback is NOT good, at any time, and especially at critical phases of flight.
FADEC.
Touted by many as the bees knees of reliable engine performance.
Software algorithm, my foot.

Give me a proper FLIGHT ENGINEER every darn time.Besides, he get wet on the walkaround when it's raining...
411A is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 12:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: venus
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Breath of fresh air Mr. 411A as are many of your posts.

JV, not "scary", just a sensible precaution until the prob is fixed. Anyway, full power is more fun!
oscarh is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 12:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyway, full power is more fun.
Have to agree with those sentiments. Just returned from a flight with a 330 tonne takeoff weight. At TOGA power, the beast fair leapt into the air - but the fuel burn was way higher than planned, obviously because of the TOGA takeoff. This might be something that will have to be allowed for until this glitch is fixed.
Wiley is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 13:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LoCoLand
Age: 19
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was always taught that the lowest fuel consumption to top of climb was that achieved by a rated takeoff (NOT a reduced one) ?
ContIgnt is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 14:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, I was taught the same thing. I'm ready to stand corrected, but I think you'll find that that relates more to a full rated climb versus a reduced rate climb (to cruise altitude).

It's a very different matter if you're including the takeoff power setting into consideration, particularly on an engine the size of the GE-115B. Take a look at the difference in fuel flow on a TOGA takeoff versus a 72 or even 45 to 50 degree assumed temp takeoff. It's considerable.

But as I said, I stand ready to be corrected by people far more tech savvy than I'll ever be.
Wiley is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 15:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 897
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Check that link!
steamchicken is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 15:20
  #9 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct link is at: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...D?OpenDocument

4HP
4HolerPoler is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 16:09
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding takeoff/climb power...and enroute fuel consumption

OK, lets look at this a little more closely.
When I first started on the Lockheed TriStar (-200 series, RB.211-524B02 engines), the aircraft were equipped with the first truly successful FMS in airline service, coupled to three ISS units, for navigation.
As is usual with FMS, the takeoff weight (mass for you European folks )
was entered (among other parameters) and the takeoff was calculated using the deepest engine de-rate possible, consistant the the runway analysis chart.
After takeoff, and once climb thrust was set, the FMS was engaged in three modes, LNAV, VNAV, and thrust management. The climb IAS (once above 10,000 feet/FL100) was always...min cost.
The thrust selected for climb by the FMS was always the least, considering the weight and climb rate.
Once the ROC decreased to 650 ft/min for thirty seconds, the FMS selected the next higher climb thrust, and this continued to top of climb.
These selected (auto) modes of thrust for takeoff and climb always, without exception produced the LEAST climb enroute fuel consumption.
Of course, we should not be surprised by all this, after all, LOCKHEED did it FIRST with wide-body aircraft.
Ahhhh...Lockheed, a truly remarkable aeroplane

Last edited by 411A; 2nd Oct 2006 at 21:44.
411A is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 16:46
  #11 (permalink)  
ZeeDoktor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmm... anyone bother to read the document? They're running "version A.0.4.5" of the FADEC controller software.

In PC speak, that's an alpha version... No wonder there are stuffups! Microsoft can't even get it right after version 5. ha!

Jokes aside, 411: take off weight/mass is not about european or not, it's about the *physically* correct term. takeoff weight is a useless quantity, as, physically speaking, the weight depends on the gravitational field you're in at the moment. So what you really mean is mass.

Cheers!
 
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 21:48
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mass is for those so inclined, European style

Ah, not really, weight is more appropriate.
At the top of my chart it says...weight and balance/trim chart.
As it should be...!
411A is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 23:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ah Lockheed


some of the most beautiful planes ever built.


original electra/hudson bomber

P38

p80

L1011

Constellation


and all those skunk work planes
jondc9 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2006, 23:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

To be nitpicking, mass is the correct term, but the chart says weight...
Check Airman is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 00:35
  #15 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,484
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
411A;

Re, "Give me a proper FLIGHT ENGINEER every darn time."

Agree, and given an AD that says,

"Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback during takeoff. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent dual-engine thrust rollback, which could result in the airplane failing to lift off before reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear obstacles below the takeoff flight path."
,

what shall we do with the software "engineer" who wrote the code?... A scene from Python's Holy Grail comes to mind...

Re "Ahhhh...Lockheed, a truly remarkable aeroplane"

Again agree...finest airplane I have ever flown. Your description of the FMS/Autopilot/Autothrust system brought back fond memories.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 06:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds like these rollback's must have produced some "fun" takoffs. I fly with four fires on the wings, so any ETOPS crews out there; How does this fit into the stringent certification guidelines? I would assume that most GE-90s are being used on some seriously long ETOPS since they are on an aircraft with some pretty long legs.

I especially like this part of the AD...

"A dual-engine thrust rollback, if not corrected, could result in the airplane failing to lift off before reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear obstacles below the takeoff flight path."

Really?? I guess they should also state that if you have a dual-engine thrust rollback you might need to land at the nearest airport because you might not be able to glide to your destination (depending on height of course).

Gotta love those geniuses at the FAA...
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 06:58
  #17 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am amazed that the FAA allow an aircraft with a defect that reduces engine power by up to 33% on takeoff would be considered serviceable. Surely an engine with FADEC version A.0.4.5 installed has a defect that cannot be cleared and is therefore unservicable.

But then the FAA is an American organisation looking after American interests and they cannot have a Boeing with GE engines grounded could they?
sky9 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 10:13
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am amazed that the FAA allow an aircraft with a defect that reduces engine power by up to 33% on takeoff
A touch more than that I fear .....

thrust level on the affected engine progressively dropped resulting in a thrust loss of 65 to 77 %
hobie is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 11:08
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: venus
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had read and understood that the potential fault is likely only at an hieght of less than 400 feet, therefore during take-off and not in climb mode.

"In both cases, the engine recovered to the proper N1 thrust level as the airplane climbed beyond 400 feet above ground level."

Have I misunderstood the EAD?
oscarh is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2006, 11:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Check Airman
To be nitpicking, mass is the correct term, but the chart says weight...
Indeed so: Mass denotes how much matter an object has whereas weight is a measure of how strongly gravity pulls on that matter. If we were to fly our 777 to the moon (ha ha, but anyway) then the weight would decrease as the effect of gravity would reduce whereas the mass (the amount of matter that the a/c is comprised of) would remain the same (fuel burn aside).
The late XV105 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.