No one should be forced to operate an aircraft with a "liklihood" of an engine shut-down, stall, etc. A descent is exactly what happened with the BA flight. What happens if you're 20,000 ASL over the Rockies in the winter and your POS Rolls needs to descnd so it can warm up a bit...??

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/....redesign/index.html

Is it BS? Yep, I agree it is...

BUT considering that a 777 can maintain FL240 (? IIRC) indefinatly on one fan even near MaxGross,

AND the fact that even if it couldn't it would take longer to sink to FL200 than it takes to cross the rockies

AND the fact that the highest peaks in the continental US are all ~14,000

AND on one fan you are at most 35minutes to fly past such terrain

AND (finally) that 777 Aircraft are more used for overwater routings...

Unless I'm mistaken the problem isn't one that occours during the climb-out, but at high altitude cruise

It's likely less of a problem than on first glance it would seem to be.

Those passengers in London had a nice ride and weren't flying over any mountains...

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
Is it BS? Yep, I agree it is...

BUT considering that a 777 can maintain FL240 (? IIRC) indefinatly on one fan even near MaxGross,

AND the fact that even if it couldn't it would take longer to sink to FL200 than it takes to cross the rockies

AND the fact that the highest peaks in the continental US are all ~14,000

AND on one fan you are at most 35minutes to fly past such terrain

AND (finally) that 777 Aircraft are more used for overwater routings...

Unless I'm mistaken the problem isn't one that occours during the climb-out, but at high altitude cruise

It's likely less of a problem than on first glance it would seem to be.

I flew the 777 for nearly 8 years. Both models the little big foot our domestic/Hawaii/East coast to Europe birds had a max gross of 550,000lbs the long rangers went 640,000lbs.

Both powered by the P&W 40 series the little guy had P&W 4077's and the big one had P&W 4090's the 77 had 77,000 lbs of thrust per side the and of course the 90's had 90,000 lbs per side.

FL 240 on ISA day at or near 640,000 lbs on one fan. Nope.

I flew them out of SFO we did a shit load of trans cons that was the first half of the flight before we got to that part where we crossed the Atlantic.

My only question in the story is this, if in fact a Delta Airlines 777 lost power in one engine over Montana and then continued to Atlanta with that engine out these boys were breaking every rule in the book. The FAR's clearly state that on a twin engine aircraft (even a B-777) with the loss of one engine or the degradation of power on one engine that you are required to land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. Are you seriously going to tell me that there were no suitable airports between Montana and Atlanta?

ORD amongst others comes to mind...

Took me two days to get from LAX to LHR on a non-stop AA 777 couple years ago. Seems the Gladys Knight and the Four TOPS was outta whack. We waited, and waited, then we waited while they flew another part from DFW to LAX, then we waited more, then we boarded the apparently critically disabled Jumbalaya Jet and flew not to LHR but JFK where we were vacuumed from our limp 777 to a juxtaposed 777 and off to LHR where I had to spend 6 hours in an Anglo hotel (more like a dormatory) so I could catch my next flight. Software be the scourge of modern existance and the likely cause of our inevitable downfall...

I'm curious why if you were flying over Montana headed to ATL and had an engine out why would you go to the "maelstrom" of ORD?

It's also kinda out of the way....

CPY, OMA, STL, etc... On the other hand are actually along your route AND not NEARLY as busy.

The central continental US is dotted with 9000ft runways to choose from and you wanna go
into Chicago?

Or am I missing something?

AD

Not to digress too much here but wouldn't you want to put an AA 777 into DFW which has the runway and happens to be the maintenance hub for that airplane ...?? If you were in Montana at the time you could go virtually anywhere ...AHHH!! Except that the "Bigfoot" has special weight requirements for landing heavy because of it's "Big Feet" vs the 747 or A380. Now it makes sense...

Maximum Takeoff Weight
Highest available weight,
loading restrictions apply.

777-200LR 766,000 lbs (347,450 kg)

777-300ER 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)

quote:

amongst others comes to mind...

If I declare an emergency the "Malestrom" of ORD gets the fuck out of my way. Over.

The POINT being that he overflew a shit load of suitable airports to go from where he was to ATL.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
Maximum Takeoff Weight
Highest available weight,
loading restrictions apply.

777-200LR 766,000 lbs (347,450 kg)

777-300ER 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)

What engines are they running on the LR and the ER we don't have either model?

The 200 and the 200-B model are lighter aircraft.

Engines
maximum thrust

777-200LR GE90-110B1 110,100 lbs (489 kN)

777-300ER GE90-115B 115,300 lbs (512 kN)

Hey! How's about a modern day Spruce Goose with a 6-Pack of those 115B's overhead ...?? Make haste with a trio of M1A1's or a lot of other crap ...

See below.

You are missing MY point, by choosing ORD as an example you picked a bad one...

There are other suitable alternates closer to Montana than ORD.

You aren't at all related to Wrong Way Corrigan are you?

A six pack of 115B's? If you pay the fuel bill

I'd be happy to be able to pay for the fuel to feed a pair of PT6A-60's... after of course I had the money to buy them and an airframe to mount them to...



AD

It finally let me paste and copy after I got rid of some of the symbols. Here are the gross weights and the Max SE alts for the 200 and the 200B model 777. For those who are interested.



B777-200 B777-200B
Gross Weight (1000 pounds)
Taxi 547.0 643.0
Takeoff 545.0 640.0
Landing 445.0 460.0
Zero Fuel 420.0 430.0


Chapter 7 ENGINE OUT PERFORMANCE
Section 30 B777-200B
ONE ENGINE ALTITUDE CAPABILITY
Maximum weight at which a positive net climb gradient (approximately 300
FPM) can be maintained. Use engine out climb speed.
Condition(s):
• Packs on
• Anti-ice off
• Maximum continuous thrust
Adjustment(s):
If anti-ice is required, make appropriate altitude reductions.
GrossWeight(1000pounds), Engine Out Speed (KIAS) Pressure Altitude (feet) Engine
ISA +10C& Below, ISA +15C, ISA +20C
GW
640.0, 276 KIAS, ALT 12,441--9000 - -6506
540.0 255 KIAS, ALT 16,800 - 15,400 --13,800

A.I. Eng-1200 Eng & WAI -1900. GW 640,000 LBS
-300 -600 GW 540,000LBS[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
You are missing MY point, by choosing ORD as an example you picked a bad one...

There are other suitable alternates closer to Montana than ORD.

You aren't at all related to Wrong Way Corrigan are you?

AD

Well it's possible that I am related to wrong way..

ORD was just something I pulled out at the moment. You are right unless of course he was doing the great circle route to ATL..

quote:

A six pack of 115B's? If you pay the fuel bill

No landing fees just port fees ...

And starting at FL300 or higher just how long does it take to sink that far?

Presuming you don't start dumping fuel

Still an engine out at any time would make for an interesting day. "Interesting" NOT being equal to
a "good thing"

BTW, Over Montana? Inbound to ATL? where was he comming from? NRT? ANC?

Just trying to mentally backtrack a great circle route here...



AD

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
And starting at FL300 or higher just how long does it take to sink that far?

Presuming you don't start dumping fuel.



BTW, Over Montana? Inbound to ATL? where was he comming from? NRT? ANC?

Just trying to mentally backtrack a great circle route here...



AD

AD,

Single engine Drift down charts don't give specific decent rates. But the decent rate depends primarily on the ISA and your gross weight.

I've done many hundreds of simulated drift downs at various weights as an instructor and the answer to your question is that it gives you plenty of time to get over most terrain world wide including any and all terrain in the continental USA. Once you get into the lower 20,000's foot range your decent rate is around 2-300 FPM your TAS is going to be around 270 to 300 KTS so depending on the wind you are covering ground pretty well.

If you do not have the ability to drift down over the terrain you must use a terrain critical escape procedure. These are outlined on specific routes and required to be in view and fully briefed before entering these geographic areas of high terrain.

In the areas we fly we had terrain escape routed for several places in South America, over Greenland and South Central Asia.

It's hard to say where these guys were coming from but if it was international it was likley somewhere in the pacific rim.

Another thing to consider if they were international and you go to place like say Omaha you've just turned your airplane into a prison. Your PAX are going to have to wait on board until customs arrives on scene. That can take LONG time. If possible you definitely want to go somewhere with customs and transportation for your PAX. That is one of the reasons ORD popped into my mind immediately. And that is probably the main reason they decided to continue to ATL. But if something would have happened these guys would have had a hard time explaining that decision to the man.

I completely forgot about Customs...
After comming from a pacific rim destination and burning >5000miles worth of fuel I'll bet he was a hell of a lot lighter than he was at take off...

I just find it amusing to note that from the closest point in Montana (say the extreem Southeast corner, But for the purposes of this discussion I'll cheat and use RAP as the initial datum point for a great circle mapper) is 779 miles from ORD and just under 1230miles from ATL

While as you say Omaha (OMA 411nm) might not be the best alternate for non technical reasons, there is also Denver, which is only ~300nm.
Not sure how you'd feel about landing that white whale
on one fan at 5400ft, but there are 12,000 to 16,000feet of runways to use at DEN...

But Denver would have the necissary customs and lodging facilities.

IMHO any airport other than DEN is a REALLY LONG way to fly on ONE engine according to a strict interpretation of any rules I've ever read...

AD

quote:

While as you say Omaha (OMA 411nm) might not be the best alternate for non technical reasons, there is also Denver, which is only ~300nm.
Not sure how you'd feel about landing that white whale
on one fan at 5400ft, but there are 12,000 to 16,000feet of runways to use at DEN...

But Denver would have the necissary customs and lodging facilities.

IMHO any airport other than DEN is a REALLY LONG way to fly on ONE engine according to a strict interpretation of any rules I've ever read...

I've flown the 777 out of DEN many hundreds of times a single engine landing isn't an issue for either landing or go around performance. DEN would have been a good choice.

There must be something to that story we are not hearing. After all it is a CNN report that alone makes it dubious at best.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

While as you say Omaha (OMA 411nm) might not be the best alternate for non technical reasons, there is also Denver, which is only ~300nm.
Not sure how you'd feel about landing that white whale
on one fan at 5400ft, but there are 12,000 to 16,000feet of runways to use at DEN...

But Denver would have the necissary customs and lodging facilities.

IMHO any airport other than DEN is a REALLY LONG way to fly on ONE engine according to a strict interpretation of any rules I've ever read...

I've flown the 777 out of DEN many hundreds of times a single engine landing isn't an issue for either landing or go around performance. DEN would have been a good choice.

There must be something to that story we are not hearing. After all it is a CNN report that alone makes it dubious at best.

Is the new Denver airport better than the old one?

AD

Whatever happened to the baggage eating monster that was installed at the new Denver ...?? Was it finally scrapped ..??

[/QUOTE]
Is the new Denver airport better than the old one?

AD[/QUOTE]

It has much better facilities and can handle more traffic. My major complaint is that the deicing pad is a PITA and causes major delays on a snowy day.

------------------------------------------------

"Whatever happened to the baggage eating monster that was installed at the new Denver ...?? Was it finally scrapped ..??"

Macifej,

Yep they scrapped it. That was multi-million $$ cluster......

quote:

The POINT being that he overflew a shit load of suitable airports to go from where he was to ATL.

It's been a few years, but IIRC, the PIC is required to write a letter to the POI and Director of Ops within ten days explaining the reason he overflew the nearest suitable airport to a more distant one. That, in itself, is problamatic.