Smilin' Jack


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Smilin' Jack   » Specific Airline Discussions   » American Airlines   » 777 Engine Failure

   
Author Topic: 777 Engine Failure
DC9
Post Captain
Member # 202

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DC9   Email DC9   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jetliner Loses Engine, Lands Safely in NYC
Jul 26 8:08 AM US/Eastern


NEW YORK


A jetliner carrying more than 250 people lost power in one of its two engines Wednesday but landed safely at a nearby airport, officials said.

The Boeing 777 plane landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport less than a half hour after the engine failed, said American Airlines spokesman Billy Sanez. Officials were investigating what caused the problem on Flight 134.

"The plane landed after the captain declared an emergency," Sanez said. "It's not a common incident, but the pilots are trained to deal with these situations."

The plane was en route to London from Los Angeles. Sanez said all the passengers would be put on another plane.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posts: 378 | From: savannah,ga.usa  |  IP: Logged
upsilon
Post Captain
Member # 78

Icon 1 posted      Profile for upsilon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DC9: The plane "...landed safely at a nearby airport, officials said.

"...landed at JFK ...less than a half hour after the engine failed....

"...landed after the captain declared an emergency

"...was en route to London from Los Angeles..... all the passengers would be put on another plane."

I just checked a great circle track from JFK to LHR and at no point was it "less than half hour" from JFK... at least for a 777.

I suspect the economics of getting the pax to LHR, the engine repaired and the plane back in service - all ASAP and at the least cost to AA were the obvious factors in the decision to put the plane down at JFK. It certainly was not the closest suitable airport after the declaration of an emergency - unless such a declaration was declared only in connection with landing with only one engine.

[ 07-28-2006, 14:40: Message edited by: upsilon ]

Posts: 74 | From: NYC  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by upsilon:


"...

I just checked a great circle track from JFK to LHR and at no point was it "less than half hour" from JFK... at least for a 777.

I suspect the economics of getting the pax to LHR, the engine repaired and the plane back in service - all ASAP and at the least cost to AA were the obvious factors in the decision to put the plane down at JFK. It certainly was not the closest suitable airport after the declaration of an emergency - unless such a declaration was declared only in connection with landing with only one engine.
[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does a great circle track from JFK to LRH have to do with a flight from LAX to LRH? Until we have more information than what was included in the Associated Press release, maybe we should assume that all procedures were properly followed and a couple of pilots earned their year's salary on that one flight.
Every once in a while, that has been known to happen. [Smile]

Randy Kramer

[ 07-29-2006, 19:31: Message edited by: extwacaptain ]

Posts: 1157 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
upsilon
Post Captain
Member # 78

Icon 1 posted      Profile for upsilon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by extwacaptain:
What does a great circle track from JFK to LRH have to do with a flight from LAX to LRH?

OK so I made a typo - as did you: ?LRH?. But I don't think many missed my point. I have flown many times as a pax on the LAX-LHR route and cannot recall ever being on a course that was less than half-hour from JFK. [As an ex-military flyer I can't seem to get over the habit of paying attention to that sort of thing.]

quote:
Originally posted by extwacaptain:
Until we have more information than what was included in the Associated Press release, maybe we should assume that all procedures were properly followed and a couple of pilots earned their year's salary on that one flight. Every once in a while, that has been known to happen.

The AP release contained ALL that the AA spokesman did and would say. I'm very sure that the pilots followed all [AA] procedures. As the AA man said, "pilots are trained to deal with these situations". I certainly was; but I would never minimize the role of a pilot.

However there is much in question about the sequence of events as released by AA and reported by AP. I have may have jumped to a conclusion; but I suspect this was a case similar to the recent BA 747 LAX-LHR flight that had an engine failure shortly after take off; yet the pilots 'followed BA procedures' and continued on to their destination only to have to put down at MAN due to lack of fuel.

[ 07-29-2006, 21:01: Message edited by: upsilon ]

Posts: 74 | From: NYC  |  IP: Logged
L1011Ret
Post Captain
Member # 1792

Icon 1 posted      Profile for L1011Ret   Email L1011Ret   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have flown LAX-LHR and usually the routes would not take you close to JFK. However, on occasion the wind took us nearly over PHL on that route. So unless we know more about the flight plan, we will not know how cloce that 777 was to JFK.
Posts: 416  |  IP: Logged
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Irish     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by upsilon:
I have may have jumped to a conclusion;

Boy, is that an understatement! Having read an AP press release, buttressed by an AA press release, and supplemented by your experiences as a passenger on the LAX-LHR route you feel qualified to conclude that "there is much in question" concerning this event and "you suspect" some type of misconduct on two airline crews in unrelated situations. Whew! I guess there's not much else to be said.

Well, having flown for TWA for 32 years and experienced at least three in-flight engine failures during that time, may I point out some concepts you might have missed?

First, the rule when an engine fails is that the pilot must proceed to, and land at, the nearest suitable airport, the operative word being suitable. There are many factors involved in the suitability concept: distance to the airport, length of runway, weather conditions, availability of emergency equipment, passenger handling capability, availability of maintenance, the number of engines on the airframe, etc. The captain is the sole authority as to the suitability of an airport. If the aircraft has two engines the latitude of authority granted by the FAR's becomes much more limited and the captain is expected to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP. Thirty minutes from event to touchdown in today's congested airspace is not, by any stretch, a very long time to operate on one engine.

Now, if you accept the statement that the pilot put the airplane on the ground within 30 minutes of the engine failure as fact (and it has to be because it was in the press release, right?), he had to be damn close to JFK, not withstanding your concept of great circle routes and your experience as a passenger. And, he would have certainly considered JFK far more suitable than Newburgh or Syracuse, for example.

As I commented on TWA Pilot.com, I remember a case where a passenger, probably a seasoned traveller like yourself, purchased a ticket on a TWA 707 from SFO-CDG. Having been told that his flight was a "polar" flight he sued TWA when the actual, most fuel-efficient flight path for the flight that day was over JFK and the Canadian Maritimes and went nowhere near the North Pole, which he thought he would see. He lost his lawsuit.

Since we know virtually nothing about you, except what you posted, I can only conclude (from my vast experience as a psychologist - I watched a lot of the Bob Newhart and Frasier shows) that you are a member of the liberal, drive-by media and are divorced from a dominating female airline captain. I think that assumption is about as fair as yours with respect to the crew on this flight and makes about as much sense as drawing conclusions and making judgements from press releases. Lord, save us!!! [Roll Eyes]

Paul

Posts: 1634 | From: Hampton, NH  |  IP: Logged
Retav8r
Post Captain
Member # 251

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Retav8r   Email Retav8r   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fully agree with what Paul has said and even parody his comments regarding the liberal views of the writer. [Wink] While Paul mentioned the great circle route and the misunderstanding of that, I think that point needs further elaboration.

During my thirty-four+ year career with TW, I flew many 'polar' flights on both the 707 and the 747 between LAX-LHR and SFO-LHR. There's no disputing the fact that a great circle is the shortest distance between two points on the globe. Airlines, however, seldom fly great circle routes as their routes are dictated by the presence of the jet stream winds that have a tremendous impact on flight time, especially with the longer segments such as the 'polar' flights that can have durations of up to eleven hours or more. While the jet streams are normally further north during the summer, there are times when the winds are centralized over the States and the computer will spit out a flight plan taking the flight close to the 'Big Apple', taking advantage of the tail wind. I've flown directly over New York City on more than one occasion while flying to LHR from the west coast. I've also overflown NYC on the westbound leg out of LHR, also to the dismay of some passengers who were expecting to see polar bears! [Big Grin]

As to the writer's comparison with BA's engine failure; again, that statement shows pure ignorance. Foreign carriers are not subject to our FARs (U.S. regulations) and therefore can exercise greater latitude in their decisions, consistent with safety. The last time that I checked, pilots didn't have a death wish. There's no question in my mind that the pilots of both carriers exercised prudent judgement and acted in a professional manner with safety upper most in their minds.

Don [Cool]

Posts: 206 | From: San Diego/ San Felipe,Mexico  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's face it -- the whole damn thing is TWA's fault!! [Big Grin]
Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
twaokc
Post Captain
Member # 664

Icon 1 posted      Profile for twaokc   Email twaokc   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MrMarky,
longtime no hear, you still doing ok.
And I will agree, it was TWA's fault.

Posts: 212 | From: Oklahoma  |  IP: Logged
nyc6035
Post Captain
Member # 423

Icon 1 posted      Profile for nyc6035     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure where I come down on the 'suitable' discussion...however here below appear to be some more facts to consider; check out this link showing the flight track:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL134/history/20060726/0352Z/KLAX/KJFK

My 'unprofessional' sense from the graphic is that the aircraft was North of Quebec when a choice was made to route toward JFK. Possible enroute diversions might have been Toronto or 'maybe' Boston...however there was likely quite a bit of altitute they would likely have needed to burn off to come into Toronto. Based on the elapsed flight time of 5:11 from LAX to JFK touchdown...they certainly weren't in the air more than an hour after making the divesion decision...likely less.

[ 08-02-2006, 20:49: Message edited by: nyc6035 ]

Posts: 281 | From: Chappaqua, NY  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by twaokc:
MrMarky,
longtime no hear, you still doing ok.
And I will agree, it was TWA's fault.

Hey OKC,

Doing good. Long time no hear from. Hope things are well with you! [Smile]

Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
MrMarky
Post Captain
Member # 635

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MrMarky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL134/history/20060726/0352Z/KLAX/KJFK

Wow -- that's interesting. One look at the trajectory of that flight path and it becomes immediately obvious that the failed engine was struck by friendly fire from a US Navy missile, and you can see by the radar traces that the missile then continued on into the Canadian wilderness, causing a massive high pressure system that is responsible for the current heat wave/Republican Global Warming that the entire Northeast is currently experiencing. Whoda thunk it? [Big Grin]

Posts: 436 | From: Concourse C  |  IP: Logged
mioguido
Post Captain
Member # 123

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mioguido     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMarky:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL134/history/20060726/0352Z/KLAX/KJFK

Whoda thunk it? [Big Grin]

sounds good to me.
Posts: 366 | From: CLE & The Space Coast  |  IP: Logged
jpp
Post Captain
Member # 2913

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jpp   Email jpp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The info I read from the company's press release was that: they initally heard a loud pop followed by some vibration... after looking into it they decided to head towards JFK because they did not want to initiate an Atlantic crossing with what they heard. So they headed towards JFK, and quite a few minutes later, as they began their descent, the engine compressor-stalled and eventually quit.

While the article makes it sound like their great circle track passed near Kennedy, what really happened was they had already made the decision to divert towards Kennedy for quite a while before the engine actually quit.

jp

Posts: 41 | From: lga  |  IP: Logged
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Irish     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's another example of why judgements should not be made or inferred until all the facts have been disclosed.

Paul

Posts: 1634 | From: Hampton, NH  |  IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Smilin' Jack's Aviation Directory



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0