Feds issue 'urgent' safety recommendation for some Boeing 777s!!!!!!!!

[aafreqflyer]

i was browsing internet this evening and saw this news item.....

Federal air safety authorities on Wednesday issued an "urgent" safety recommendation that calls for the redesign of a component in engines used in some Boeing 777 jets.

The airworthiness directive refers to ice buildup that can clog fuel lines. The new directive affects 56 aircraft in the U.S. fleet, and a total of 228 worldwide, the Federal Aviation Administration says on its Web site.


FROM FAA Website...

The FAA has published in the Federal Register a revised airworthiness directive for Boeing 777 aircraft equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. The new AD adds further procedures to prevent ice buildup that can clog fuel lines. Airlines have 10 days to comply with the new directive. The new directive affects 56 aircraft in the U.S. fleet, and a total of 228 worldwide.

The British investigation of a Boeing 777 accident at Heathrow in January 2008 found that ice can accumulate in the main fuel tank system of the aircraft at the low fuel temperatures and low-power fuel flows associated with long flights. Investigators found that when the pilot increases power, the increased fuel flow in the tank can cause the ice to break free, which can then block the flow of fuel to the engines.

Initial review of other 777 engine combinations has not revealed the same vulnerability to ice buildup in the fuel lines.

The FAA is working with European aviation safety organizations to consider the implications of this investigation on other aircraft/engine combinations.

[beerup]

I think all the AA 777s have RR engines, so they may be affected.

[Palal]

AF, DL use RR, UA uses P&W AFAIK, not sure about others.

The two incidents in question are the Heathrow engine that you mentioned and the DL incident PVG-ATL over Montana

[AAerSTL]

DL has RR's on it's 8 772ERs, and the 772LRs are of course only available with the GE engines.

[Lurker1999]

The CO 772ERs use GE engines.

[William13]

Hi Flyers,

i just saw the announcement and am flying United FFA > IAD and back next month. I see Palal indicated that UA's 777-200s are outfitted with P&Ws - though the statement is made conditional with the "AFAIK". Does anyone have confirmation of this fact? While I plan on taking the flight either way - there's no reason to be anxiously listening for the sounds of ice clogged FOHE's if i don't have to!

thanks in advance,
William

[someotherguy]

Originally Posted by William13

Hi Flyers,

i just saw the announcement and am flying United FFA > IAD and back next month. I see Palal indicated that UA's 777-200s are outfitted with P&Ws - though the statement is made conditional with the "AFAIK". Does anyone have confirmation of this fact? While I plan on taking the flight either way - there's no reason to be anxiously listening for the sounds of ice clogged FOHE's if i don't have to!

thanks in advance,
William

Yes, all United's 777s use P&W engines. Mind you, they once had to fly one over bottomless ocean for 192 minutes on a single engine (the longest single-engine ETOPS divert in history, AFAIK: N780UA on 17 March 2003 flying AKL to LAX and diverted to KOA due to loss of oil pressure).

[mcgahat]

I just saw this on BBC America. Apparently RR says they will have a "fix" in a year but the US says not good enough. Interestingly but not surprisingly the EU disagrees with the US FAA.

[kkjay77]

Originally Posted by someotherguy

Yes, all United's 777s use P&W engines. Mind you, they once had to fly one over bottomless ocean for 192 minutes on a single engine (the longest single-engine ETOPS divert in history, AFAIK: N780UA on 17 March 2003 flying AKL to LAX and diverted to KOA due to loss of oil pressure).

How is that possible? Aren't UA 777s only certified at ETOPS 180?

[alanR]

Originally Posted by mcgahat

I just saw this on BBC America. Apparently RR says they will have a "fix" in a year but the US says not good enough. Interestingly but not surprisingly the EU disagrees with the US FAA.

Or because it takes a year to ensure the fix doesn't make things worse, cause other problems and gets accepted by all the relevant authorities - including the FAA.

If the problem was so serious then they'd ground the planes, ergo the problem isn't serious and so doesn't need a half baked panicked immediate fix

[mcgahat]

Originally Posted by alanR

Or because it takes a year to ensure the fix doesn't make things worse, cause other problems and gets accepted by all the relevant authorities - including the FAA.

If the problem was so serious then they'd ground the planes, ergo the problem isn't serious and so doesn't need a half baked panicked immediate fix

Yep, I agree with that. Plane engines are not like computer software, you dont just create a "fix" and then install it the next day without a battery of tests (software groups test too, well supposedly).

I have a friend that works for RR. I will have to ask him what the real story is from there perspective.