If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

BOEING 777-300

From SKYbrary Wiki

B773
Aircraft
Name 777-300
Manufacturer BOEING
Body Wide
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail Regular tail, mid set
WTC Heavy
APC D
Type code L2J
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E
RFF Category 9
Engine Jet
Engine count Multi
Position Underwing mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 5


Manufacturered as:

BOEING 777-300


BOEING 777-300

BOEING 777-300 BOEING 777-300 3D

Description

Long range high capacity wide-body airliner. In service since 1998. Stretched version of 777-200 as replacement of the 747-100/200. Largest twin engine passenger aircraft in the world. The 777-300 has a maximum range of 6005 nm11,121,260 m
11,121.26 km
36,487,073.517 ft
with a MTOW of 299370 kg. The 777-300ER (Extended Range)is capable of flying 7880 nm14,593,760 m
14,593.76 km
47,879,790.061 ft
with MTOW of 351,534 kg774,999.808 lbs
351.534 tonnes
and has a wider wingspan. The B773 is member of the B777 family of aircraft.

Technical Data

Wing span 60.9 m199.803 ft
Length 73.8 m242.126 ft
Height 18.7 m61.352 ft
Powerplant 2 x PW4098 (436 kN) or
2 x RR Trent 892 (400 kN) or
2 x GE90-94B (416 kN) turbofans.
Engine model General Electric GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, Rolls-Royce Trent 800

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
Descent
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
Approach
V2 (IAS) 168 kts IAS 200 kts IAS 300 kts IAS 300 kts MACH 0.82 TAS 490 kts MACH 0.84 IAS 300 kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) 149 kts
Distance 3000 m ROC 3000 ft/min ROC 2500 ft/min ROC 2000 ft/min ROC 1500 ft/min MACH 0.84 ROD 1000 ft/min ROD 3000 ft/min MCS 250 kts Distance 1800 m
MTOW 299370299,370 kg
299.37 tonnes
kg
Ceiling FL430 ROD ft/min APC D
WTC H Range 60096,009 nm
11,128,668 m
11,128.668 km
36,511,377.979 ft
NM

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B773

  • B773 / B738 / B738, Melbourne Australia, 2015 (On 5 July 2015, as a Boeing 777-300ER was departing Melbourne, two Boeing 737-800s which were initially on short final for intersecting runways with their ground separation dependent on one receiving a LAHSO clearance, went around. When both approaching aircraft did so, there was a loss of safe terrain clearance, safe separation and wake vortex separation between the three aircraft. The Investigation attributed the event to the actions of an inadequately supervised trainee controller and inappropriate intervention by a supervisory controller. It also identified a systemic safety issue generated by permitting LAHSO at night and a further flaw affecting the risk of all LAHSO at Melbourne.)
  • B773, Auckland Airport New Zealand, 2007 (On 22 March 2007, an Emirates Boeing 777-300ER, started its take-off on runway 05 Right at Auckland International Airport bound for Sydney. The pilots misunderstood that the runway length had been reduced during a period of runway works and started their take-off with less engine thrust and flap than were required. During the take-off they saw work vehicles in the distance on the runway and, realising something was amiss, immediately applied full engine thrust and got airborne within the available runway length and cleared the work vehicles by about 28 metres.)
  • B773, Lisbon Portugal, 2016 (On 13 January 2016 ice was found on the upper and lower wing surfaces of a Boeing 777-300ER about to depart in the late morning from Lisbon in CAVOK conditions and 10°C. As Lisbon had no de-ice facilities, it was towed to a location where the sun would melt the ice more quickly but during poorly-planned manoeuvring, one of the wingtips was damaged by contact with an obstruction. The Investigation attributed the ice which led to the problematic re-positioning to the operator’s policy of tankering most of the return fuel on the overnight inbound flight where it had become cold-soaked.)
  • B773, London Heathrow UK, 2016 (On 30 August 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew began takeoff from London Heathrow at an intersection one third of the way along the runway using the reduced thrust calculated for a full-length take off instead of the rated thrust calculated for the intersection takeoff. As a result, the aircraft was only just airborne as it crossed the airport boundary and an adjacent public road. The Investigation attributed the data input error to crew failure to respond appropriately on finding that they had provisionally computed performance data based on different assumptions and concluded that the relevant Operator procedures were insufficiently robust.)
  • B773, Paris CDG France, 2013 (On 28 July 2013, with passengers still boarding an Air France Boeing 777-300, an abnormal 'burnt' smell was detected by the crew and then thin smoke appeared in the cabin. A MAYDAY was declared and the Captain made a PA telling the cabin crew to "evacuate the passengers via the doors, only via the doors". The resulting evacuation process was confused but eventually completed. The Investigation attributed the confused evacuation to the way it had been ordered and established that a fault in the APU had caused the smoke and fumes which had the potential to be toxic.)
  • B773, Singapore, 2016 (On 27 June 2016, a Boeing 777-300ER powered by GE90-115B engines returned to Singapore when what was initially identified as a suspected right engine oil quantity indication problem evidenced other abnormal symptoms relating to the same engine. The engine caught fire on landing. The substantial fire was quickly contained and an emergency evacuation was not performed. The cause of the low oil quantity indication and the fire was a failure of the right engine Main Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger which had resulted in lubrication of the whole of the affected engine by a mix of jet fuel and oil.)
  • B773, Tokyo Japan, 2016 (On 27 May 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew made a high speed rejected take off when departing from Tokyo after a number one engine failure warning was quickly followed by a fire warning for the same engine and ATC advice of fire visible. As the fire warning continued with the aircraft stopped, an emergency evacuation was ordered. The Investigation found that the engine failure and fire had occurred when the 1st stage disc of the High Pressure Turbine had suddenly failed as result of undetected fatigue cracking which had propagated from an undetected disc manufacturing fault.)
  • B773, en route, northern Turkey, 2014 (On 8 August 2014, the First Officer of a Boeing 777 in the cruise at night at FL340 inadvertently input a change of desired track into the MCP selected altitude window whilst acting as both PF and PM during controlled rest by the aircraft commander. The aircraft then descended for nearly 2 minutes without her awareness until ATC queried the descent and it was arrested at FL317.)
  • B773, en-route, Bay of Bengal, 2011 (On 18 October 2011, an Etihad Boeing 777-300 encountered severe turbulence westbound over the Bay of Bengal because of a late track deviation whilst the aircraft commander was briefly absent from the flight deck. Two occupants, one a member of the cabin crew and the other a passenger, sustained severe injuries and 12 other occupants sustained minor injuries. The subsequent Investigation noted that the severe weather encountered was evident well in advance and could have been avoided. The low level of experience in role and on aircraft type of the operating crew was noted.)
  • B773, en-route, Bering Sea, 2013 (On 2 July 2013, a Korean Air Lines Boeing 777-300 experienced an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of one of its GE90-115B engines while crossing the Bering Sea. The crew made an uneventful diversion to Anadyr Russia. The Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) delegated investigative duties of this event to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which identified the cause of the failure as a manufacturing process deficiency which could affect nearly 200 similar engines.)
  • B773, en-route, South China Sea Vietnam 2011 (On 17 October 2011, a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300 in the cruise at night with a Training Captain in command made what turned out to be an insufficient deviation around a potential source of turbulence and, with the seat belt signs remaining off, a number of cabin crew and passenger injuries were sustained during sudden brief but severe turbulence encounter. The Operator subsequently introduced enhanced pilot training to support more effective weather avoidance and better use of the various types of weather radar fitted to aircraft in their 777 fleet.)
  • B773, en-route, east northeast of Anchorage AK USA, 2015 (On 30 December 2015, a Boeing 777-300 making an eastbound Pacific crossing en-route to Toronto encountered forecast moderate to severe clear air turbulence associated with a jet stream over mountainous terrain. Some passengers remained unsecured and were injured, one seriously and the flight diverted to Calgary. The Investigation found that crew action had mitigated the injury risk but that more could have been achieved. It was also found that the pilots had not been in possession of all relevant information and that failure of part of the air conditioning system during the turbulence was due to an improperly installed clamp.)
  • B773, en-route, north northwest of Adelaide Australia, 2017 (On 14 October 2017, a Boeing 777-300ER en route to Sydney declared a MAYDAY and diverted to Adelaide after the annunciation of a lower deck hold fire warning and the concurrent detection of a burning smell in the flight deck. The remainder of the flight was completed without further event and after landing a precautionary rapid disembarkation was performed. The Investigation found that the fire risk had been removed by the prescribed crew response to the warning and that the burning which had occurred had been caused by chafing of a wiring loom misrouted at build.)
  • B773, vicinity Houston TX USA, 2014 (On 3 July 2014, a Boeing 777-300 departing Houston came within 200 feet vertically and 0.61nm laterally of another aircraft after climbing significantly above the Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID) stop altitude of 4,000 feet believing clearance was to FL310. The crew responded to ATC avoiding action to descend and then disregarded TCAS 'CLIMB' and subsequently LEVEL OFF RAs which followed. The Investigation found that an inadequate departure brief, inadequate monitoring by the augmented crew and poor communication with ATC had preceded the SID non-compliance and that the crew should have followed the TCAS RAs issued.)
  • B773, vicinity Melbourne Australia, 2011 (On 24 July 2011, a Thai Airways International Boeing 777-300 descended below the safe altitude on a night non-precision approach being flown at Melbourne and then failed to commence the go around instructed by ATC because of this until the instruction had been repeated. The Investigation concluded that the aircraft commander monitoring the automatic approach flown by the First Officer had probably experienced ‘automation surprise’ in respect of the effects of an unexpected FMS mode change and had thereafter failed to monitor the descent of the aircraft with a selected FMS mode which was not normally used for approach.)
  • Vehicle / B773, Singapore, 2013 (On 3 October 2013, a vehicle entered an active runway without clearance after partial readback of a potentially confusing clearance was not challenged by the controller. A different controller then cleared a Boeing 777-300 to land without taking all available action to ensure that the runway was clear. The aircraft crew saw the vehicle near the edge of the runway after touchdown and manoeuvred their aircraft away from it, although the aircraft wing still passed over it. At the time of the incident, vehicles with clearance were permitted to cross red stop bars, a policy which has since been changed.)