Meeting my new love - The Boeing 777

[Devil's Advocate]

Thanks for the information XHRTSP. Do satellite phones sound any clearer than conventional high frequency radio transmissions? I've always wondered why it seems little has been done to improve the audio clarity of aircraft communications. Most if not all of my personal audio sources have improved substantially over my lifetime while commercial truck and aircraft communications still sound much as they did the very first time I heard them.

 

[railiner]

Thanks for that explanation....so you still use HF over the ocean, and not satcom voice?

Before coast out we will tune up the appropriate facility on HF and ensure we can establish comms with them. If one of our two HF radios is deferred, then the procedure would be to use the sat phone as a backup. In addition to the HF check, we would need to dial up the facility and make sure they have our phone number and we can make calls both ways.

Thanks again for that response...

 

[railiner]

Thanks for the information XHRTSP. Do satellite phones sound any clearer than conventional high frequency radio transmissions? I've always wondered why it seems little has been done to improve the audio clarity of aircraft communications. Most if not all of my personal audio sources have improved substantially over my lifetime while commercial truck and aircraft communications still sound much as they did the very first time I heard them.

I am by no means an expert on communications, always like to learn more....

I do think part of the sound quality is due to aircraft using AM rather than FM due to other properties...otoh, railroads use FM in the VHF band

Not sure about what truck communications you are referring to, but if it's Citizen Band...that also uses AM, with its sound limitations, (not to mention interference issues)....

 

[ehbowen]

Although they have added channels (by slicing the frequency allocations of pre-existing channels), a tube-and-crystal radio from the 1940s would still "work" in todays ATC environment (as long as you had exactly the right crystals). While, technically speaking, the system is indeed due for an overhaul from the ground up (pardon the pun), any sweeping structural changes are going to be met by stiff resistance from aircraft owners, especially those who only operate part-time or in VFR conditions. Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.

 

[Blackwolf]

Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.

Aircraft ANYTHING is not cheap!

 

[ehbowen]

Aircraft radios Are Not Cheap.

Aircraft ANYTHING is not cheap!

Definite +1 to that!

 

[GBNorman]

Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.

There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.

 

[PRR 60]

Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.

There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.

This was a loss of engine cowling in flight. The incident happened on Tuesday (2/13) and was covered by the main stream media and industry news.

New York Times

Aviation Herald

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Fortunately for United Airlines, the tragic event occurring in Parkland FL yesterday kept the media otherwise occupied and away from the incident near Hawaii yesterday.

There is no mention of such in either The Times or Journal print editions today.

I’ve seen multiple mentions of the engine problem on my local station.But I’m not surprised that a mass murder takes precedent over a failed engine when the plane made a safe landing.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

Dunno. I learned about it within hours of it happening. I guess some need to broaden their horizon of news sources.

Besides why would anyone give precedence to a story of a well managed mechanical failure over 17 people dead? Things going right is seldom news anyway.

Incidentally this aircraft is the 4th delivered 777, a 777A with Pratt and Whitney engines. I have actually flown in this very aircraft from London Heathrow to Newark soon after it was delivered some 20 or so, years back.

Looks like there was a failure of a fan blade leading to its detachment and then damage to the nacelle causing it to disintegrate, or well that is the current learned prognostication.

BTW, there was another emergency landing of an A320 with P&W engines in Las Vegas on the same day too. People were joking that P&W needs to bathe their office in salt water or something to remove the curse from it.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Why would anyone give precedence to a story of a well-managed mechanical failure over 17 people dead?

Well, for starters we're still concerned about plane crashes and we remain convinced they can be stopped.

 

[Trogdor]

BTW, there was another emergency landing of an A320 with P&W engines in Las Vegas on the same day too. People were joking that P&W needs to bathe their office in salt water or something to remove the curse from it.

One digit and one airport code character off. The plane was an A330, and it was in Lagos, Nigeria (LOS).

Unless there was an A320neo that had an emergency landing in Vegas, too. That plane has had more than its share of engine problems of late.

 

[jis]

Unless there was an A320neo that had an emergency landing in Vegas, too. That plane has had more than its share of engine problems of late.

So much so that Airbus has stopped accepting any further P&W Engines until they fix the known problems, and that is holding up A320neo deliveries, and everyone is marginally pissed off about it.

More on this aircraft. Tail # N773UA with 89720 hours and 16340 cycles. although this says nothing about the engine or the nacelle, since it has probably been changed/replaced several times in 20+ years.

 

[railiner]

Are there any published stats on whether P&W, RR, or GE engines have been more reliable in the 777?

 

[jis]

Are there any published stats on whether P&W, RR, or GE engines have been more reliable in the 777?

I haven't found any.But that is not to say it does not exist.

One will recall that GE90's had a pretty rough going the first year of introduction and BA (first GE powered 777 customer) had to withdraw its 777s for several months until problems were fixed. Kind of similar to the problems that PW is having with 320neos.

BTW, Beyond 777-200ER, and 777-300 (not ER) the only engine available is various versions of GE90/9X. That is 777-200LR/F, 777-300ER and 777X versions have only GE90 or GE9X variants. No RR or PW engines for them.

 

[railiner]

That GE90-115B is awesome!

 

[GBNorman]

777; the most beautifully proportioned aircraft Mr. Boeing put on this earth.

Was it ever an experience to fly on a one month old United 777-300 ORD-MUC last August. It still smelt new. Their Polaris Business Class is a superb product. One having "been there", hard to go back to "The Gulag" on an overseas flight.

Well, I went over again this year, but it was back to a 772(Q) I got 6A, which is nice because United does not sell 6B. It is for pilot rest, but if something is open in First, that's where they will go.
It seems that Polaris just "petered out". United got fifteen 773(W)'s new and they were so configured. But they are in no rush to reconfigure any existing 763's or 772's, save reportedly one each. Who knows the A-350's on order will be configured.

But an Attendant friend of mine with thirty five years says to me "hardly the first time they've made a big splash over something, then it just fades away".

 

[railiner]

"hardly the first time they've made a big splash over something, then it just fades away".

Unfortunately, I find that statement, all too true...the 'bright idea people', in a company's marketing department will push for some innovation or improvement, and then have it quashed by the company's 'bean-counter's', before it even gets a fair chance to prove itself. With advance sales algorithm's, they quickly determine that it may not be the success it was hyped to be, and put an early end to it before too much is invested...

 

[jis]

At least I will have Polaris on 77W on my EWR - BOM - EWR later this year [emoji4]

 

[Trogdor]

It seems that Polaris just "petered out". United got fifteen 773's new and they were so configured. But they are in no rush to reconfigure any existing 763's or 772's, save reportedly one each.

Not sure where you're getting this idea from, but 11 767s have already been converted to Polaris, with two more currently in mod. In fact, there is only one 767 with "old UA" business class left, and it will go in for mods pretty soon. After that, three 767s that UA just bought from Hawaiian will go in for mods, along with, reportedly, some of the 767s that were initially modified to Continental-style business class shortly after the merger.

On the 777 front, they have 17 777-300ERs in service, with an 18th on the way soon. One has already been modified to include their new premium economy product, and the rest should supposedly get converted in short order. They also have five 777-200ERs with Polaris (and premium economy), with four more out of service for mods.

Boeing 787s with Polaris show up this fall, and the existing 787 fleet is supposedly going to go in for modifications by the end of next year.

Polaris did get off to a slow start, but it's moving along just fine now.

 

[GBNorman]

Interesting to learn from member Trogdor.

My Attendant friend Maureen has yet to work a "W", although some of her "galpals" have. Looking way ahead to next August (not sure if I'm going again; I'll be 78 yo and "it just might be too much") but UA952/3 ORD-MUC-ORD is showing three class "Q" configuration.

But pleased to hear UA is moving ahead -especially with the 789's.

 

[Trogdor]

United seat maps for flights far into the future, especially for fleets undergoing reconfiguration, don't mean much. It's just a placeholder.

 

[B757Guy]

That GE90-115B is awesome!

Yes they are, make me smile every time I line up on the runway. Excellent to have all that performance as needed, especially when during a go-around. I've only done one real-life GA so far in the 777, and it was even better than the 75/76, which had plenty of power to get you out of just about anything.

 

[GBNorman]

Time to update your handle to, say, "Triple Seven Guy"?

I agree, a beautiful aircraft; the best one Mr. Boeing's successors ever built (much as I hate to say it, the latter day 737 varietals take second place).

I'm sure to be up forward is even more exciting than for me "back there", but to "feel the Generals or Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney doing their stuff", as well as knowing if you lost one right at V1, there would be a successful take off and return.

 

[B757Guy]

Time to update your handle to, say, "Triple Seven Guy"?

I agree, a beautiful aircraft; the best one Mr. Boeing's successors ever built (much as I hate to say it, the latter day 737 varietals take second place).

I'm sure to be up forward is even more exciting than for me "back there", but to "feel the Generals or Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney doing their stuff", as well as knowing if you lost one right at V1, there would be a successful take off and return.

Yes! Even at MTOW, a V1 cut, while nerve wracking, is a bit less so, with all that power, and a few features the engineers at Boeing designed to help reduce the workload!