Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF 773ER Missed Approach At JFK  
User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12177 times:

I was waiting at the train station yesterday to go to work when AF's 773ER passed over me heading into R22L at JFK. She was coming rather high. About a few minutes later she reappeared from the southeast and passed over me again. Unless AF had two flights with 773ERs back to back, I would have to assume that it was the same aircraft going around. Hey at least it gave me two chances to see her pass by. Looks really cool when it flies overhead with those raked wing tips.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12101 times:

The AF crew just wanted to have an additional approach for fun. . .who wouldn't.  Big grin


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12094 times:

They've had quite an eventful few days.

User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12046 times:

They've had quite an eventful few days?

I haven't heard anything at all about AF and their 773ERs, not to mention, their flight has been right on schedule during this past entire week, arriving at around 20-25 minutes after 3PM. That whole engine shut-down story, I have yet to see it anywhere, so I'm not quite sure what events they've had that you are mentioning.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12011 times:

I believe I read the engine shutdown in this weeks Flight International... or maybe I was dreaming... but I 95% sure there was a write up.


Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11979 times:

guess, I'm going to go out and buy it at the store and read it. But it hasn't been posted anywhere else. But like I said before, shes been coming in everyday, on-time for the past few weeks.

User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11913 times:

Geez, i was just commenting, no need to get so defensive about the 773ER.

User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11881 times:

Roberta

no one's getting defensive, just thought it would be a bit strange that things are happening to that aircraft and they have managed to keep flying it into JFK on-time over the past two weeks. According to BoeingBus, there seems to be an article in this week's Flight International.


User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11846 times:

just thought it would be a bit strange that things are happening to that aircraft and they have managed to keep flying it into JFK on-time over the past two weeks

You're being defensive again Big grin


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 11372 times:

Not sure about the missed approach, but I can confrm that I wasn't day dreaming and yes according to Flight Internation the 777-3300er experienced not one but TWO inflight shutdowns JUST before delivery though. As one can expect, Boeing and ge are currently looking into this... of course the small article goes into the technical terms of what had failed, something to go with the all important oil pressure, which triggerd a shutdowns... GE replaced the engines and we are all safe now, right?


Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11186 times:

the B777 experienced not one but TWO inflight shutdowns JUST before delivery though!

WHOW. That's scary!
Luckily it wasn't on the same flight, or that B777-300ER would not have made it across the pond... Any less apart these 2 incidents and the crew must seriously start reviewing their ditching procedures....

Seriously, does anybody know how much chance there is this can actually happen one day? I have no idea, but even if the chance is only 1 in 100 billion of flights it WILL happen one day... And maybe 'fate' will not wait till all those billions of flights are completed before proving Murphy's law.

[Edited 2004-06-09 01:59:07]

User currently offlineMITaero From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10603 times:

You people argue about the dumbest things. Sabenapilot, you do realize your argument applies to 4 engines as well, don't you, since it "WILL" happen?

Chill.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 911 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

I have no idea, but even if the chance is only 1 in 100 billion of flights it WILL happen one day... And maybe 'fate' will not wait till all those billions of flights are completed before proving Murphy's law.

The 737 which has peformed rapid, short cycles every day since 1968 has yet to reach 125 million flights. Since a twin-failure on the 777 is calculated at one per billion flights, the 777 could easily go its entire life without reaching a billion flights. Thus, it is statistically possible that the 777 never has a twin failure.

But sure, fate might not wait until the end of these billion flights to screw one unlucky Triple-7. But it remains that the 777 has been flying for 9 years without a single write-off.


User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10164 times:

"I was waiting at the train station yesterday to go to work when AF's 773ER passed over me heading into R22L at JFK. She was coming rather high. About a few minutes later she reappeared from the southeast and passed over me again."

I've spotted at 22L on several occasions and have seen go-arounds on that runway just about every time I've been there (I have a shot of a KLM 777 on a missed approach to 22L in the database). That must be a tough runway. One thing about your comment, though, gives rise to question: how long was it between sightings of the AF 773? It would take more than just a couple of minutes to fly out the missed approach from 22L and get re-established on 31L/R - probably 15-20 minutes at best, I would think.


User currently offlineCaptSkibi From United States of America, joined May 2004, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10029 times:

MITaero

You people argue about the dumbest things. Sabenapilot, you do realize your argument applies to 4 engines as well, don't you, since it "WILL" happen?

It did happen, to a British Airways B747 enroute from either Kuala Lumpur or Singapore to Australia. They happened to fly into the ash from an erupting volcano at night, so they couldn't see it. This was before ash was reported in the meteorological reports. They managed to get their engines restarted below 18,000', I believe, as this was the floor of the ash.

There was a show on this on Discovery Wings (I think) not too long ago. I don't remember all the numbers (i.e. flight and date), but it was quite a fascinating story.



Private Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land / DL Gold Elite
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

MITaero...

You people argue about the dumbest things. Sabenapilot, you do realize your argument applies to 4 engines as well, don't you, since it "WILL" happen?

If an A340 would loose not one but 2 of its engines it is only at a level of emergency comparable to that of a B777 using its ETOPS qualification... Chances a quad looses ALL 4 engines are simply non-existent unless of course you have fuel starvation or a flight through an ash cloud: 2 cases where the number of engines doesn't matter...


DFWRevolution,
The 737 which has performed rapid, short cycles every day since 1968 has yet to reach 125 million flights. Since a twin-failure on the 777 is calculated at one per billion flights, the 777 could easily go its entire life without reaching a billion flights. Thus, it is statistically possible that the 777 never has a twin failure.

Yes, but a B737 or in fact any other short haul twin suffering an engine failure will not have to look as far for a landing field like a long haul twin is supposed to do; it will easily find a divertion airport and land asap, thus not play with fate the way ETOPS planes now do. The shorter the time is between the first engine failure and the landing, the lower the risk pax will have to swim one day. Staying airborne for 60 minutes after an engine failure is the basic requirement for any plane; 120 or even 180 is already pushing it a bit but when I read things like 300 and more minutes it just isn't safe enough anymore to me, sorry.

But sure, fate might not wait until the end of these billion flights to screw one unlucky Triple-7. But it remains that the 777 has been flying for 9 years without a single write-off.

Indeed, 9 rather uneventful years but in this field, time is your enemy! Statistics show you it will happen and the longer it takes before it actually happens, the more likely it is it is going to happen....
Just have a look at the Space shuttle; Can't remember what the calculated failure rate was, but is was 1 in menny ten thousands; however, fate did not even wait till 100 it struck.... And it did it 2 times already.


User currently offlineNORTHSEATIGER From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 432 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Technically speaking flying through ash is'nt the type of inflight shutdown we're talking about here as this as an external component causing the engine to shutdown, I would term this type of in flight shutdown as bearing failure, fcu failure, oil pressure/temp problems.


T's And P's look good....Rotate
User currently offlineRamerinianair From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6613 times:

Roberta,
Like I've said before, no matter what the disscussion, you will always try and dis-credit the boeing product. For that fact alone people should respond back to your pesimestic comments.
SR



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

Sabenapilot:

The shuttle analogy is not a good one. The shuttle operates in the most extreme environment known to man. Compared to that aircraft operate in a rather tame environment.


User currently offlineInitRef From India, joined Nov 2000, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

I don't want to get into the A vs B argument here, but considering the ETOPS expansion, I wonder if Boeing did the right thing with engine exclusivity and GE.

One small problem that leads to more IFSD on the GE engines will affect the whole fleet. Having two engine manufacturers will mitigate that risk, but I am sure Boeing had many compelling reasons to choose the GE exclusive option.


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

LMP737,

In no way am I comparing the space shuttle to any airplane, the only reason I point to the space shuttle accidents is because they are real prove an accident sometimes happens before the statistical moment they are supposed to happen. And not once, but even twice!


User currently offlineMITaero From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

>Chances a quad looses ALL 4 engines are simply non-existent

The same can be said about 2 engine aircraft. It's still extremely unlikely to have 2 independent engine failures on the same flight. Not anything to get worried about - especially as engine technology and maintenance improves. There are more serious issues to focus on.


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Well since some on here (Roberta, Sabenapilot) feel this is a time to discredit Boeing and the 777, I'll just say this:

Wouldn't an engine failure be a problem with the GE product, not the 777?

Indeed, 9 rather uneventful years but in this field, time is your enemy! Statistics show you it will happen and the longer it takes before it actually happens, the more likely it is it is going to happen....

As a pilot, Sabenapilot, I'd figure you'd have a little more sense in your head. You really think it's inevitable that someday we'll have a 777 lose both engines on a longhaul flight and crash. Well, why can't the same things be said about your beloved Airbus products, The A32X, the A330, The A300/310?

There's always an extremely small risk of ANY twin (yeah, ANY, not just those crappy Boeing planes  Insane) losing both engines in flight, and statistically it's impossible.

With our technology these days, 4 engines 4 longhaul means just about nothing.



-NWA742


User currently offlineUA744KSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4747 times:

Ah............. The old A v. B crap again. Gotta love it  Sad

How is it that we turn a thread where someone is excited about seeing a plane twice into the ritualistic transatlantic trashing?


User currently offlineMIASkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Geez...I've been reading these posts for a while..And I finally joined! About 5 min ago...I must say the BOEING vs AIRBUS posts are quite ridiculous!

Both companies produce fantastic airplanes...They all have something for everyone.

So the B773ER Engine had a shutdown...It happens. Airbus has had problems also, lets not forget the Airbus A320 Crash after takeoff during an inaugural airshow. That didn't stop people from liking or buying the plane...Obviously!

So congrats to AF on their B773ER's...And hello to all my fellow enthusiasts!



Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
25 UALongHaul : If I am not mistaken, Airlines go to Boeing to pick up planes, they are not "devliered" to the airline. A through check is preformed by the airline be
26 MIASkies : Well im not a die hard fan of AF either...but I must say do enjoy those complimentary cocktails on the CDG-BCN leg! hahaha!
27 BoeingBus : Folks, this failure occurred during the test phase and BEFORE the plane was delivered to AF. Now, we won't discredit the A330 because it crashed befor
28 Darkblue : Just have a look at the Space shuttle; Can't remember what the calculated failure rate was, but is was 1 in menny ten thousands; however, fate did not
29 Vorticity : Indeed, 9 rather uneventful years but in this field, time is your enemy! Statistics show you it will happen and the longer it takes before it actually
30 Sabenapilot : Hey, when did I discredit the B777, NWA742? ...a B737 or in fact any other short haul twin suffering an engine failure will not have to look as far fo
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : suppose tomorrow they can built an engine twice as reliable as the most reliable engine we have available now... Anecdotal comparison. Such an "improv
32 Roberta : Well since some on here (Roberta, Sabenapilot) feel this is a time to discredit Boeing and the 777, I'll just say this: Discredit Boeing! Where exactl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Missed Approach At DXB. Lufthansa 777 posted Wed Oct 18 2006 11:29:11 by Qslinger
Query On LH A343 & AF A332 Missed Approach @ ATL posted Sat Nov 19 2005 21:13:55 by Ruslan
BA Miss Approach At JFK? posted Tue Aug 10 2004 10:44:32 by Jetblue15
AF 773ER Back At JFK posted Mon Mar 28 2005 23:10:34 by Mark777300
AF 773ER At JFK posted Thu May 20 2004 21:52:36 by Mark777300
KLM Missed Approach Feb. 11 At JFK posted Wed Feb 13 2002 19:04:19 by Mirabilis
AF 77W's At JFK This December? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 22:13:10 by B742
Approach To 13L At JFK posted Tue Dec 23 2003 08:36:19 by Apollo13
The Canarsie Approach 13L/13R At JFK posted Tue Dec 9 2003 14:03:43 by DC3CV3407AC727
Planes Missed By Only 200feet At JFK Now? posted Sun Jul 7 2002 02:05:10 by Lufthansa404