Are there any 747 engineers on the forum?
I need some important info regarding running engines......no kidding!

Basically I was involved with a delay last year and I am going to court tomorrow.

They only provided their evidence today!

They are saying that because No3 & 4 engines were removed, that they could not test No1 engine because air pressure and electricity were not present due to health and safety issues.

Is this true or a load of bull?

Your urgent help and an email would be appreciated

1. Get an adjournment - you need reasonable time to analyse their evidence.
2. So if you are flying your Jumbo and 3 and/or 4 engine fail 1 and 2 won't run? oooeerrrr

I think that there maybe structural concerns as one wing will be more stressed? I am not sure.

Hi,

No you can't run the engines without the others fitted, they are quite correct. I'm afraid you may be scuppered

sorry

Can you quantify that? I need to know definitely.

The plane will be able to fly if an engine fails, however to run one up, you require the others, to support fueling, hydraulics, pressures, etc. It can be done , but only with the engine on a testbed, not a plane

What about the airflow reverser operation? Can the assembly be operated while the engines are off?
It was a cable from the cockpit to the actuator that was detached.
Could that be diagnosed without engine power? ( I am assuming that the apu could supply electrical and hydralics).

unfortunately I don't know the specifics of that, only the test procedures on the engine, you would assume it is possible however why test it on Auxillary when it will always be needed when in use, i.e engine powered.

Additionally the reversers are most likely hydraulic, and will need engine running to check effectivley

aditionally when the engine is in flight and fails you will have the RAT to supply electical power.

sorry i suspect you will need someone who knows the specifics of the engines better then me. but in fairness i'd agree with kissy, and request a delay due to late presentation of evidence. I suspect there may be some one from the engine makers here but will be keeping low, legal reasons and all that

Cheers, I have spoken to cargolux in luxembourg, Rolls Royce, the CAA and I don't know who else.
They are a closed shop when it comes to information and commitment.
Really tells the customer their place..........NOWHERE!

I thought for diagnosis, they could have determined the fault by using the apu and sign the job off once they had tested it under engine power.



[Edited on 25/9/2006 by nitram38]

I do know someone who works on the design of the trent engine (not very well). Only problem is i'll never be able to get him to comment as he'd be risking his job voicing an opinion not sanctioned by his company & he won't know the specifics of the plane.

I suspect everyone else will be the same.

Without getting an official representative in court you're stuck with trying to get an official repair place / qualified engineer on the stand. I don't know the legal system but i'd guess you'd have to pay them, hope you win and claim back costs.

[Edited on 25/9/06 by MikeR]

No probs

If the engines were not fitted to the aircraft, it would NOT be possible to test the others - the connections from the missing engines into the Bleed Air manifold would have to be blanked off; Running the APU would also pressurise this manifold, therefore not possible. Likewise the hydraulics lines - thrust reversers almost certainly hydraulic. Even a hydraulic test rig could not be connected. Sorry if this is bad news! I am not a 747 engineer but this is 'generic' information about large aircraft.

One more question.
If the airflow reverser problem was still present after the 10 day allowed repair time, plus 10 day extension, at the time of going to maintenance, would n't it be prudent to diagnose the fault before carrying out the other engine removal which made this repair impossible?

when you first mentioned you where going to court for a delay i though that is a bit extrame for a flight been late taking off.

it looks a lot more complex than that,

good luck.

They did not adhere to EU261/2004. The law that is supposed to protect travellers from delays. cancellation or denied boarding. We had a really bad time.
The get out clause is "extraordinary circumstance" which the airline have taken a year to supply the evidence, even though they are required to do so.
This did not happen until today......the day before court!!!!!!!!!

IANAL but I would have though the court would grant an adjournment without question. If the prosecution are only disclosing evidence one day before the trial than the defence will simply not be ready.

I am ready, it is just this one point I wanted to clear up.

I'd try and get some media involved; they won't want the bad publicity - I do not know the level of compensation you are after, but I doubt it outweighs the cost of bad publicity.

I would have to agree with the others here, There is no way of testing an engine T/R system with only 2 of 4 engines fitted, especially as they're on the same wing.

The Aircraft shouldn't have even been moved in that state as it weight and balance would have over stressed the wing, imagine moving your car with 9 tonnes missing of one side.

Apart from the Hyd system and bleed air supply that has been mentioned, the thrust either forwards or backwards would have pivoted the plane around it's axis.

I would suggest that yes the maintainers could have/should have carried out all diagnostic maintenance before pulling 2 engines off the wing, what would have happened if the 3rd engine was unserviceable as well.

Sorry I can't vouch any information specific to 747's, but i do/have work as an aircraft engine fitter for the last 16 years culminating in Pratt and whitney eninges on the c17 picture left.

ATB Dan.

[Edited on 25/9/06 by scutter]

Cheers Dan,
the strange thing is that the daily maintenance log (photo copies they supplied), only mentions the pylon repairs to engine 3 & 4 on one day and the next day it mentions the pylons and the thrust reverser problem on number 1.
Shouldn't the log have recorded all faults on a daily basis until they were cleared?
These pages were only the last two days of an 8 day maintenance.
As this log runs cronologically, I am going to suggest that this item was forgotten from the original daily log entry and was missed off being tested before the engines were removed.
I will also put it to the judge that they should have done a diagnostic check of all systems before rendering the whole aircraft inoperable.









[Edited on 25/9/2006 by nitram38]

Ok, With the risk of hacking off a maintenance company.

Were the pylon faults discovered during the maintenance, or brought forward from a list normally called "acceptable differed faults", if it's the latter then the company could have prevented it.

As for the maintenance logs, there's normally a main list of faults discovered on the pre input checks, which is gone through at the start of work each day, with someone saying whether it can be cleared in that days work, if not the list should be rewritten each day minus the jobs which have been completed that day. Ideally you need all 8 days maintenance logs to see if the problems were missed.

ATB Dan.

I think the plylon faults were found but I am not sure.
The lack of logs suits me as it suggests that the previous 6 days only had the plylon mentioned (as per the 7th day provided), otherwise they would only have needed to supply day one and the last one. I will question as to what happened for the first few days of the A4 inspection and on what date the engine removal commenced.
I do electrical/mechanical maintenance and it is common to list faults and then clear each one from the list so that other shift workers can keep up with changes.
All of this points to a human failure to plan the job properly.
The airline said that the aircraft did not fly because of a safety issue.
This is a half truth, otherwise they would have carried out the reverser repairs in the first 10 days as legislation requires. If it was a safety issue, then they prolonged this by continuing to fly for 20 days.
The real reason was not one of passenger safety but one of legislation and licence expiry.
I feel better now I have had a chance to get a clearer picture.
Thanks for your help

Martin

[Edited on 25/9/2006 by nitram38]

Plz keep this thread updated, quite interesting

Your welcome, A worry is that the airline could claim that the maintainers kept them in the dark for fear of some sort of finanicial penalty.

Good luck, Dan.

Dan,
then I will point out that I requested a person in my statement to them and the court to answer technical issues on the day.
I think that they are going to rely on just a managers statement and there will be a non technical solicitor to answer.
I will suggest that it is their fault as they were given the opportunity to do so.

Cheers Martin

Couldnt you find out the facts using the new FoI Act? They have to have an answer with 40 days too!

Just you try with airlines. They feed each other so they do not want to help.

Update:

The judge tore the airline to shreds, and demanded that the expert witness (engineer) attend at the next hearing. He said that 2 hours was not enough for this case and set aside a whole day.
He also said my case might set a president for Europe!

I can't say more, but thanks again for your input.

Good on ya Martin

Jason