PDA

View Full Version : United 777 engine out and ETOPS


Dave Siciliano
November 10th, 2009, 03:51 PM
This incident from March is being discussed on another board. Supposedly the longest ETOS flight to date. I was wondering who maintains these emergency bases and where they are.

Best,

Dave

===============================================

United Airlines' Boeing 777 carrying 255 passengers flew over the mid-Pacific Ocean against strong headwinds for 192 min. under single-engine power Mar. 17 to land without incident at Kona on the western coast of the big island of Hawaii .

Boeing confirmed that it was the longest single-engine diversion during Extended Twin Operations (ETOPS) since the advent of transoceanic twin-engine flights 20 years ago by a Trans World Airlines Boeing 767-200.

United spokesman Joe Hopkins said the 777 crew shut down the No. 2 PW4077-90 powerplant after the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) displayed a high oil temperature and low oil quantity. The No. 1 engine powered the aircraft, operating as Flight 842, for the next 3+ hr.
to the Kona landing.

The 777 had departed Auckland , New Zealand , bound for Los Angeles. Hopkins said the 777 was likely well past the midway point to Hawaii when the engine was shut down.

United was operating the 777 in ETOPS mode on a route that, for planning purposes, is 180 min. from a suitable airport in still air with one engine operating. A Boeing official said the crew expected a 180-min.-long diversion but the 777 encountered headwinds that extended the flight by another 12 min.

The diversion during the ETOPS portion of the flight was the third recorded for all 777s, which have completed more than 400,000 flights under the FAA rules for extended-range operations. A 767 held the previous record for diversion length, but it was "not close" to the Mar. 17 diversion time, the manufacturer's spokesman said.

A Pratt & Whitney official said a detector in the No. 2 engine showed evidence of chips. Pratt and United will investigate what caused the problem.

Hopkins said United's 777 fleet has recorded a total of 16 inflight shutdowns during all phases of flight since the carrier's first 777 flight in May 1995. The United 777s have flown 2.3 million hr. during the eight years, with an inflight engine shut down rate of 0.0021 per 1000 engine hours. United operates 60 777s.

The aircraft was expected to be out of service in Kona for at least two days, if not more. United shipped a replacement engine to Hawaii, but it had to be placed on an oceangoing barge to reach the Kona airport where it was to be installed.

In addition to the crew on board Flight 842, 10 passengers occupied the first-class cabin, 47 were in business-class and 198 in economy.

After the Kona landing, passengers were accommodated on United and other airline flights.

RotorAndWing
November 10th, 2009, 04:18 PM
ETOPS= Engines Turn Or People Swim

Trapper John
November 10th, 2009, 04:28 PM
I was wondering who maintains these emergency bases and where they are.

And what the landing fees are! :D


Trapper John

Dave Siciliano
November 10th, 2009, 04:32 PM
O.K., where's the wise guy that always says the other engine on a twin just gets one to the scene of the crash <g>

Best,

Dave

Greg Bockelman
November 10th, 2009, 05:45 PM
This incident from March is being discussed on another board. Supposedly the longest ETOS flight to date. I was wondering who maintains these emergency bases and where they are.

Best,

Dave


Well, they aren't airports built specifically for ETOPS operations. They are commercial airports that can be used as diversion stations. So whoever the local airport authorities are are the ones that maintains the bases

Dave Siciliano
November 10th, 2009, 05:55 PM
Greg: I thought there were some pretty remote ones like Midway Island and some former Soviet bases up north, but what do I know.

Best,

Dave

Greg Bockelman
November 10th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Well yes there are some pretty remote places. But I always thought they were under local control.

AdamZ
November 10th, 2009, 06:00 PM
ETOPS= Engines Turn Or People Swim

That right there was funny:rofl::rofl:very funny!

Greg Bockelman
November 10th, 2009, 06:06 PM
That right there was funny:rofl::rofl:very funny!
LOL. And VERY old.

Ted DuPuis
November 10th, 2009, 06:31 PM
O.K., where's the wise guy that always says the other engine on a twin just gets one to the scene of the crash <g>

Oh don't worry, Dave, you won't confuse any of them by presenting facts. They'll still be convinced the second engine just gets you to the crash. ;)

Obi Heed Kenobi
November 10th, 2009, 07:58 PM
O.K., where's the wise guy that always says the other engine on a twin just gets one to the scene of the crash <g>

Best,

Dave

Patience, Grasshopper. Give it time.... :)

RotorAndWing
November 10th, 2009, 10:10 PM
LOL. And VERY old.

I resemble that remark!:D

Ron Levy
November 11th, 2009, 11:42 AM
O.K., where's the wise guy that always says the other engine on a twin just gets one to the scene of the crash <g>To bring this back to earth, I think we all know that Part 25 transport-category aircraft like the 777 are designed so they can continue safely after complete loss of thrust from one engine. OTOH, light piston twins (especially non-turbocharged ones) generally need the power from both engines to avoid descent back to earth unless operated well below max gross weight and/or down near sea level.

In any event, with 3 inflight shutdowns in 400,000 flights, that suggests the probability of inflight shutdown is about 0.0000075. Based on that, the probability of losing both engines would be 0.0000075-squared, or 0.00000000005625, which means that the odds say someone's going swimming by the time we get to 18 billion flights. FWIW, that's within the FAA's acceptable range for catastrophic failure probability of one in a billion. Based on 400,000 flights in 14 years, that means the fleet's probably good for 630,000 years before we see passengers swimming away from a 777. You feel safe with that, Greg?

Ted DuPuis
November 11th, 2009, 01:24 PM
To bring this back to earth, I think we all know that Part 25 transport-category aircraft like the 777 are designed so they can continue safely after complete loss of thrust from one engine. OTOH, light piston twins (especially non-turbocharged ones) generally need the power from both engines to avoid descent back to earth unless operated well below max gross weight and/or down near sea level.

For many of us, that's how we operate our light piston twins, so it works out pretty well.

Greg Bockelman
November 11th, 2009, 10:48 PM
You feel safe with that, Greg?

You want to put a smiley on that Ron? :D I never had a problem with twin engine flight over the ponds. A lot of my peers were uneasy with that. It never bothered me. Doing polar routes to Asia, even though it isn't over all that much water, still does not provide many opportunities for safe landings if something untoward should happen.

Dr. O
November 12th, 2009, 10:21 AM
Well in Fat Albert the Apache it takes both massive, 150hp, engines just to get to the scene of the crash...

denny-o