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


B777 Series

From SKYbrary Wiki

Article Information
Category: Aircraft Family Aircraft Family
Content source: SKYbrary About SKYbrary


Long Range passenger jet manufactured by Boeing. The Boeing 777 Series includes the following variants:

Aircraft Family Members
ICAO Type Designator Name Length (m)
BOEING 777-200 / 777-200ER BOEING 777-200 / 777-200ER 63.7 m
BOEING 777-300 BOEING 777-300 73.8 m
BOEING 777-300ER BOEING 777-300ER 73.9 m


Aircraft 777-200 777-200LR 777-200ER 777-300 777-300ER
Overall Length 63.7 m208.99 ft <br /> 63.7 m208.99 ft <br /> 63.7 m208.99 ft <br /> 73.8 m242.126 ft <br /> 73.9 m242.454 ft <br />
Wing Span 60.9 m199.803 ft <br /> 60.9 m199.803 ft <br /> 60.9 m199.803 ft <br /> 60.9 m199.803 ft <br /> 64.8 m212.598 ft <br />
Engines 2 x PW 4077 (342.5 kN) or
2 x GE90-77B (342.5 kN) or
2 x RR Trent 877 (338.1 kN).
2 x GE 90-110B1 (489 kN) or
2 x GE 90-115BL (512 kN).
2 x PW 4090 (400.3 kN) or
2 x GE90-94B (417 kN) or
2 x RR Trent 895 (415 kN).
2 x PW4098 (436 kN) or
2 x RR Trent 892 (400 kN) or
2 x GE90-94B (416 kN) turbofans.
2 x GE90-115B (511 kN).
Passengers (3 class config.) 305 301 301 368 386
Max. Range 5,240 nm9,704,480 m <br />9,704.48 km <br />31,838,845.168 ft <br /> 9,380 nm17,371,760 m <br />17,371.76 km <br />56,993,963.296 ft <br /> 7,725 nm 6,009 nm11,128,668 m <br />11,128.668 km <br />36,511,377.979 ft <br /> 7,825 nm14,491,900 m <br />14,491.9 km <br />47,545,603.709 ft <br />
Maximum takeoff weight 247.2 tonnes247,200 kg <br /> 347.45 tonnes347,450 kg <br /> 297.55 tonnes 299.37 tonnes299,370 kg <br /> 351.53 tonnes351,530 kg <br />

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B777 Series

  • B763 / B772, New Chitose Japan, 2007 (On 27 June 2007, a Skymark Boeing 767-300 rejected its night take off from the 3000 metre-long runway 19R at New Chitose from around 80 knots when an All Nippon Boeing 777-200 which had just landed on runway 19L was seen to be taxying across the runway near the far end. There was no actual risk of collision. Both aircraft were being operated in accordance with conflicting air traffic clearances issued by the same controller. None of the three controllers present in the TWR including the Supervisor noticed the error until alerted by the aircraft rejected take off call.)
  • B772 / A321, London Heathrow UK, 2007 (On 27 July 2007, a British Airways Boeing 777-200ER collided, during pushback, with a stationary Airbus A321-200. The A321 was awaiting activation of the electronic Stand Entry Guidance (SEG) and expecting entry to its designated gate.)
  • B772 en-route suspected location southern Indian Ocean, 2014 (On 8 March 2014, contact was lost with a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER operating a scheduled night passenger flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing as MH370. The available evidence indicates that it crashed somewhere in the South Indian Ocean but a carefully- targeted underwater search coordinated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has failed to locate the aircraft wreckage and the Investigation process is now effectively stalled. A comprehensive Investigation Report has been published and Safety Recommendations informed by the work of the Investigation have been made but it has not been possible to establish what happened and why.)
  • B772, Cairo Egypt, 2011 (On 29 July 2011 an oxygen-fed fire started in the flight deck of an Egypt Air Boeing 777-200 about to depart from Cairo with most passengers boarded. The fire rapidly took hold despite attempts at extinguishing it but all passengers were safely evacuated via the still-attached air bridge access to doors 1L and 2L. The flight deck and adjacent structure was severely damaged. The Investigation could not conclusively determine the cause of the fire but suspected that wiring damage attributable to inadequately secured cabling may have provided a source of ignition for an oxygen leak from the crew emergency supply)
  • B772, Denver CO USA, 2001 (On 5 September 2001, a British Airways Boeing 777-200 on the ground at Denver USA, was substantially damaged, and a refuelling operative killed, when a fire broke out following the failure of a refuelling coupling under pressure because of improper attachment.)
  • B772, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2018 (On 24 July 2018, a Boeing 777-200 making its second attempt to land at Dhaka in moderate to heavy rain partly left the runway during its landing roll and its right main landing gear sustained serious impact damage before the whole aircraft returned to the runway with its damaged gear assembly then causing runway damage. The Investigation attributed the excursion to the flight crew’s inadequate coordination during manual handling of the aircraft and noted both the immediate further approach in unchanged weather conditions and the decision to continue to a landing despite poor visibility instead of going around again.)
  • B772, Las Vegas NV USA, 2015 (On 8 September 2015, a catastrophic uncontained failure of a GE90-85B engine on a Boeing 777-200 taking off from Las Vegas was immediately followed by a rejected takeoff. A fuel-fed fire took hold and a successful emergency evacuation was completed. The Investigation traced the failure to a fatigue crack in the high pressure compressor well within the manufacturer’s estimated crack initiation life and appropriate revisions to risk management have followed. The main operational risk concern of the Investigation was the absence of any procedural distinction in crew emergency responses for engine fires beginning in the air or on the ground.)
  • B772, London Heathrow UK, 2007 (On 26 February 2007, a Boeing 777-222 operated by United Airlines, after pushback from the stand at London Heathrow Airport, experienced internal failure of an electrical component which subsequently led to under-floor fire. The aircraft returned to a stand where was attended by the Airfield Fire Service and the passengers were evacuated.)
  • B772, London Heathrow UK, 2008 (On 17 January 2008, a British Airways Boeing 777‑200ER crash-landed 330 metres short of the intended landing runway, 27L, at London Heathrow after a loss of engine thrust on short final. This un-commanded reduction of thrust was found to have been the result of ice causing a restriction in the fuel feed system. Prompt crew response minimized the extent of the inevitable undershoot so that it occurred within the airport perimeter.)
  • B772, Manchester UK, 2005 (On 1 March 2005, a Boeing 777-200 being operated by Pakistan International Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight from Lahore to Manchester experienced a landing gear fire during taxi in at destination after an apparently routine landing in normal day visibility. There were no flight deck indications of a significant fire but an emergency evacuation was recommended by attending Fire Crew and carried out. Thirty one of the 344 occupants sustained minor injuries during this evacuation and the rest were uninjured. Five firefighters also sustained minor injuries as they assisted passengers from the slides. Damage to the aircraft was minor.)
  • B772, San Francisco CA USA, 2013 (On 6 July 2013, an Asiana Boeing 777-200 descended below the visual glidepath on short finals at San Francisco after the pilots failed to notice that their actions had reduced thrust to idle. Upon late recognition that the aircraft was too low and slow, they were unable to recover before the aircraft hit the sea wall and the tail detached. Control was lost and the fuselage eventually hit the ground. A few occupants were ejected at impact but most managed to evacuate subsequently and before fire took hold. The Probable Cause of the accident was determined to be the mismanagement of the aircraft by the pilots.)
  • B772, Singapore, 2010 (On 14 June 2010, a Boeing 777-200 being operated by British Airways on a scheduled passenger service from Singapore to London Heathrow with a relief crew present on the flight received indications of abnormal functioning of the right engine during a night take off in VMC. Subsequent and directly related developments en route, including greater than planned fuel consumption which put the intended destination out of reach, led to the declaration of a PAN to ATC and diversion to Amsterdam. Inspection after flight found that parts of the right engine were damaged or missing and the latter were matched to previously unidentified debris recovered from the runway at Singapore. None of the 214 occupants were injured.)
  • B772, Singapore, 2013 (On 19 December 2013, the left engine of a Boeing 777-200 taxiing onto its assigned parking gate after arrival at Singapore ingested an empty cargo container resulting in damage to the engine which was serious enough to require its subsequent removal and replacement. The Investigation found that the aircraft docking guidance system had been in use despite the presence of the ingested container and other obstructions within the clearly marked 'equipment restraint area' of the gate involved. The corresponding ground handling procedures were found to be deficient as were those for ensuring general ramp awareness of a 'live' gate.)
  • B772, St Kitts West Indies, 2009 (On 26 September 2009, the crew of a British Airways Boeing 777-200 unintentionally began and completed their take off in good daylight visibility from the wrong intermediate runway position with less than the required take off distance available. Due to the abnormally low weight of the aircraft compared to almost all other departures by this fleet, the aircraft nevertheless became airborne just before the end if the runway. The investigation attributed the error to a poorly marked taxiway and the failure of the crew to include the expected taxi routing in their pre flight briefing.)
  • B772, Tokyo Narita Japan, 2008 (On July 30 2008, a Boeing 777-200 being operated by Vietnam Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight landed at Narita in daylight and normal visibility and shortly afterwards experienced a right engine fire warning with the appropriate crew response following. Subsequently, after the aircraft had arrived at the parking stand and all passengers and crewmembers had left the aircraft, the right engine caught fire again and this fire was extinguished by the Airport RFFS who were already in attendance. There were no injuries and the aircraft sustained only minor damage.)
  • B772, en-route Bozeman MT USA, 2008 (On 26 November 2008, a Boeing 777-200 powered by RR RB211 Trent 800 series engines and being operated by Delta AL on a scheduled passenger flight from Shanghai Pudong to Atlanta was in the cruise at FL390 in day VMC in the vicinity of Bozeman MT when there was an uncommanded thrust reduction or ‘rollback’ of the right engine.)
  • B772, en-route, Northern Kanto Japan, 2014 (On 16 December 2014, a US-operated Boeing 777-200 encountered a significant period of severe clear air turbulence (CAT) which was unexpected by the flight crew when travelling eastbound over northern Japan at night between FL 270 and FL290. The decision to turn back to Tokyo to allow the nine seriously injured passengers and crew to be treated was made 90 minutes later. The Investigation concluded that the CAT encountered had been correctly forecasted but the Operator's dispatcher-based system for ensuring crew weather awareness was flawed in respect of international operations out of 'non hub' airports.)
  • B772, en-route, Osaka Japan, 2017 (On 23 September 2017, a large wing-to-body fairing panel confirmed to have dropped from a Boeing 777-200 passing over the centre of Osaka after takeoff off from Kansai hit and significantly damaged a moving vehicle. The Investigation found that the panel involved had a sufficient history of attachment bracket failures for Boeing to have developed an improved thicker bracket for new-build aircraft which had then been advised as available as a replacement for in-service 777-200 aircraft in a Service Letter which KLM had decided not to follow. Although some incorrect bracket attachment bolts were found, this was not considered contributory.)
  • B772, en-route, near Hrabove Eastern Ukraine, 2014 (On 17 July 2014, ATC lost contact with a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200 en route at FL330 and wreckage of the aircraft was subsequently found. An Investigation by the Dutch Transport Safety Board concluded that the aircraft had been brought down by an anti-aircraft missile fired from an area where an armed insurgency was in progress. It was also concluded that Ukraine already had sufficient reason to close the airspace involved as a precaution before the investigated event occurred and that none of the parties involved had recognised the risk posed to overflying civil aircraft by the armed conflict.)
  • B772, en-route, northern Indian Ocean, 2014 (On 16 April 2014, a pre-flight concern about whether a Boeing 777-200ER about to depart Singapore had been overfuelled was resolved by a manual check but an en-route fuel system alert led to close monitoring of the fuel system. When a divergent discrepancy between the two independent fuel remaining sources became apparent, an uneventful precautionary air turnback was made and overfuelling subsequently confirmed. The Investigation found that a system fault had caused overfuelling and that the manual check carried out to confirm the actual fuel load had failed to detect it because it had been not been performed correctly.)
  • B772, en-route, southwest of Belfast UK, 2017 (On 13 November 2017, fumes on a GE90-powered Boeing 777-200 sufficient to require flight crew oxygen mask use occurred as it descended towards London Heathrow. The flight was completed without further event. Subsequent engineering assessments twice led to release to service followed by recurrence and after the fourth such release, a left engine overheat was annunciated. After flight, a hole in the engine combustor case was found and the engine was removed for repair. The Investigation attributed the delayed identification of the causal fault to inappropriate guidance in the aircraft manufacturer’s Fault Isolation Manual which was has since been amended.)
  • DH8D / B772, vicinity Sydney Australia, 2016 (On 9 December 2016, a Bombardier DHC8-400 departing Sydney lost prescribed separation against an inbound Boeing 777-200 after its crew failed to ensure that the aircraft levelled as cleared at 5,000 feet and this was exceeded by 600 feet. The Investigation found that the First Officer, as Pilot Flying, had disconnected the autopilot prior to routinely changing the selected airspeed because it tended to disconnect when this was done with altitude capture mode active but had then failed to re-engage it. The Captain's lack of effective monitoring was attributed to distraction as he sought to visually acquire the conflicting traffic.)
  • F900 / B772, en-route, near Kihnu Island Estonia, 2013 (On 17 October 2013, a Falcon 900 climbing as cleared to FL 340 and being operated as a State Aircraft equipped with TCAS II v7.0 initially responded to a TCAS RA against crossing traffic at FL 350 in day VMC in the opposite direction to the one directed and prescribed separation was lost as a result. The Investigation concluded that the F900 crew had commenced a climb on receipt of a TCAS RA 'ADJUST VERTICAL SPEED' when a reduction in the 800 fpm rate of climb was required. Safety Recommendations were made in respect of TCAS RA requirements for State Aircraft.)
  • B744 / B773 / B773, en-route, Delhi India, 2018 (On 22 December 2018, a Boeing 747-400 crew began to climb from FL310 without clearance and prescribed separation was lost against both an opposite direction Boeing 777-300 at FL 320 and another same direction Boeing 777-300 cleared to fly at FL330. The Investigation found that the 747 crew had requested FL 390 and then misunderstood the controller’s response of “level available 350” as a clearance to climb and gave a non-standard response and began to climb when the controller responded instructing the flight to standby for higher. Controller attempts to resolve the resultant ‘current conflict warnings’ were only partially successful.)
  • 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, Abu Dhabi UAE, 2016 (On 27 September 2016, the left engine of a Boeing 777-300 failed on takeoff from Abu Dhabi after it ingested debris resulting from tread separation from one of the nose landing gear tyres and a successful overweight return to land then followed. The Investigation found that FOD damage rather than any fault with the manufacture or re-treading of the tyre had initiated tread separation and also noted the absence of any assessment of the risk of engine damage and failure from such debris ingestion which it was noted had the potential to have affected both engines rather than just one.)
  • 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, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2016 (On 7 June 2016, a GE90-115B engined Boeing 777-300 made a high speed rejected takeoff on 3200 metre-long runway 14 at Dhaka after right engine failure was annunciated at 149KCAS - just below V1. Neither crew nor ATC requested a runway inspection and 12 further aircraft movements occurred before it was closed for inspection and recovery of 14 kg of debris. The Investigation found that engine failure had followed Super Absorbent Polymer (SAP) contamination of some of the fuel nozzle valves which caused them to malfunction leading to Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) mechanical damage. The contaminant origin was not identified.)
  • B773, Dubai UAE, 2016 (On 3 August 2016 a Boeing 777-300 rejected a landing at Dubai from the runway following a late touchdown after floating in the flare. It then became airborne without either pilot noticing that the A/T had not responded to TO/GA switch selection and without thrust, control was soon lost and the aircraft hit the runway and slid to a stop. The Investigation found that the crew were unfamiliar with the initiation of a go around after touchdown and had failed to follow several required procedures which could have supported early recovery of control and completion of the intended go around.)
  • B773, Hong Kong China, 2017 (On 28 April 2017, a Boeing 777-300 made a 3.2g manual landing at Hong Kong, which was not assessed as such by the crew and only discovered during routine flight data analysis, during a Final Line Check flight for a trainee Captain. The Investigation noted that the landing technique used was one of the reasons the Check was failed. The trainee had been an experienced 737 Captain with the operator who had returned from 777 type conversion training with another airline and was required to undertake line training to validate his command status in accordance with local requirements.)
  • 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, Mauritius, 2018 (On 16 September 2018, a Boeing 777-300 was beginning its takeoff from Mauritius when an inadvertently unsecured cabin service cart left its stowage in the forward galley area and travelled at increasing speed towards the rear of the cabin injuring several passengers before it stopped after meeting an empty seat towards the rear of the cabin. The Investigation noted that cabin crew late awareness of an abnormal aircraft configuration and its consequences had led to them generally prioritising service delivery over safety procedures prior to takeoff with this then leading to an overlooked safety task not being detected.)
  • B773, Munich Germany, 2011 (On 3 November 2011, a Boeing 777-300ER crew lost directional control of their aircraft soon after touchdown and after veering off one side of runway 08R, it then crossed to the other side of it before stopping. The Investigation found that during the final stages of an intended autoland in CAT 1 conditions, an ILS LLZ signal disturbance caused by a departing aircraft had led a flight path deviation just before touchdown and, after delaying a pre-briefed automatic go-around until this was inhibited by main gear runway contact, the crew failed to either set thrust manually or disconnect the autopilot.)
  • 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, near Kurihara Japan, 2018 (On 24 June 2018, a Boeing 777-300 was briefly subjected to unexpected and severe Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) whilst level at FL300 which resulted in a serious injury to one of the cabin crew as they cleared up after in-flight service. The Investigation concluded that the turbulence had occurred because of the proximity of the aircraft to a strong jet stream and that the forecast available at pre-flight briefing had underestimated the strength of the associated vertical wind shear.)
  • 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.)
  • B789 / B773, Delhi India, 2017 (On 7 October 2017, an arriving Boeing 787-9 and a departing Boeing 777-300 lost separation during intended use of runway 29 at Delhi when the 787-9 commenced a go around from overhead the runway because the departing 777-300 was still on the runway and came within 0.2 nm laterally and 200 feet vertically after ATC had failed to ensure that separation appropriate to mixed mode use was applied using speed control. The conflict was attributed to failure of the TWR controller to adhere to prevailing standard operating procedures.)
  • CRJ2 / B773, Toronto Canada, 2019 (On 9 August 2019, a Bombardier CRJ-200LR about to depart Toronto which had read back and actioned a clearance to line up on the departure runway then began its takeoff without clearance and only commenced a high speed rejected takeoff when a Boeing 777-300 came into view crossing the runway ahead. A high speed rejected takeoff was completed from a maximum speed of around 100 knots. The Investigation concluded that an increased crew workload, an expectation that a takeoff clearance would be received without delay and misinterpretation of the line up instructions led to the premature initiation of a takeoff.)
  • 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.)
  • A320/B773, Dubai UAE, 2012 (On March 20 2012 a Ural Airlines Airbus A320 failed to taxi as instructed after vacating the landing runway 12L at Dubai and crossed the lit stop bar of an intersection access to runway 12R before stopping just in time to prevent a collision with a Boeing 777-300ER about to pass the intersection at very high speed on take off. Taxi clearance had been correctly given and acknowledged. The aircraft commander had extensive aircraft type experience but the inexperienced First Officer appeared to be undergoing early stage line training with a Safety Pilot present. The Investigation is continuing.)
  • B773, Lagos Nigeria, 2010 (On 11 Jan 2010, an Air France Boeing 777-300ER successfully rejected a night take off from Lagos from significantly above V1 when control column pressure at rotation was perceived as abnormal. The root and secondary causes of the incident were found to be the failure of the Captain to arm the A/T during flight deck preparation and his inappropriate response to this on the take off roll. It was considered that his performance may have being an indirect consequence of his decision to take a 40 minute period of in-seat rest during the 90 minute transit stop at Lagos.)
  • B773, vicinity Toronto Canada, 2012 (On 28 May 2012 a GE90-powered Air Canada Boeing 777-300ER experienced sudden failure of the right engine during the initial climb after take off. There were no indications of associated engine fire and the failed engine was secured, fuel jettisoned and a return to land made. The Investigation found that the failure was related to a known manufacturing defect which was being controlled by repetitive boroscope inspections, the most recent of which was suspected not to have identified deterioration in the affected part of the engine.)
  • B77W, en-route, northeast of Los Angeles USA, 2016 (On 16 December 2016, a Boeing 777-300 which had just departed from runway 07R at Los Angeles was radar vectored in Class ‘B’ airspace at up to 1600 feet below the applicable minimum radar vectoring altitude. The Investigation found that the area controller’s initial vectoring had been contrary to applicable procedures and their communication confusing and that they had failed to recover the situation before it became dangerous. As a result, as the crew were responding in night IMC to a resulting EGPWS ‘PULL UP’ Warning, the aircraft had passed within approximately 0.3 nm of obstructions at the same altitude.)
  • C525 / B773, vicinity London City UK, 2009 (On 27 July 2009, a Cessna 525 departing from London City failed to comply with the initial 3000 feet QNH SID Stop altitude and at 4000 feet QNH in day VMC came into close proximity on an almost reciprocal heading with a Boeing 777-300ER. The 777, on which line training was being conducted, failed to follow any of the three TCAS RAs generated. Actual minimum separation was approximately 0.5nm laterally and estimated at between 100 feet and 200 feet vertically. It was noted that the Cessna had been given a stepped climb SID.)

Further Reading

For further information, visit the Boeing website