Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emergency Landing At LAX  
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10516 times:

There's currently a Cathay Pacific 747 circling over the Pacific dumping its fuel just west of LAX claiming that there is or was some sort of fire on board. It's due to land at midnight. More news to come.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSFO212 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10420 times:

I heard it was due to an engine fire. Only one engine out.

Any other news?


User currently offline777ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10408 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

How long does it take to dump fuel from a fully laden B747? Hope everything turns out all right

User currently offlineSFO212 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10383 times:

A year or so ago, China Airlines 747-400 SFO-TPE had a compressor stall on takeoff from SFO. You could hear the two big bangs all over the airport. Aircraft flew out over the Pacific for about 30 minutes or so dumping fuel before returning and landing with no problems.

User currently offlineZKSUJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10386 times:

Are they able to land with full fuel? I remember that an SQ 744 landed in AKL safetly afetr a tail strike without dumping fuel, that plane was more or less full.

User currently offline777ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10343 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

ZKSUJ, considering it could be an engine fire then it would be safer to land with basically empty fuel tanks.

User currently offlineSwadispatcher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10340 times:

Looks like flight 883 to Hong Kong.. on its way back in according to Flight Explorer..


User currently offlineCXoneworld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10316 times:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/10142786.htm

User currently offlineRadarcontact From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10115 times:

A MD-11 can land with maximum take-off weight. If this is necessary, the whole aircraft needs n intensive inspection for structure damage. Probably the gear will be written off.

I don't know if this is also possible with a B747.


User currently offlineLxlgu From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10093 times:

According to Cathay

Number 4 engine surge followed by sparks/fire and vibration

Cheers!
Tony


User currently offlineCLT18R From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9945 times:

I remember a year or two ago a Delta MD-11 made an emergency landing here in CLT. I think it was on it's way to the UK. I assume it dumped fuel since it landed because of a suspected fire on board.

Just curious, what happens when a jumbo dumps all of it's fuel over land (as in the case with the Charlotte MD-11 incident? Does most of it disperse or can there be small droplets of Jet-A all over cars and streets?


User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9267 times:


I know you can never tell what is going to happen, but this sort of thing happens quite a lot, so i doubt anything will go wrong.

Mike


User currently offlineUALFAson From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

Local ABC station here in L.A. just did a live shot update from LAX for the 11:00 news.

Cathay Pacific flight to HKG took off around 11 last night and immediately blew an engine. Circled for about an hour dumping fuel then landed safely.

Somebody must have gotten the head's up b/c there's footage of the plane landing from at least 2 angles plus interviews with pax inside TBIT after deplaning.

IMHO, certainly not worthy of a live shot 12 hours later, but when you've got video that good... I wouldn't be surprised to see something on the network news later tonight.

Then they the followed that story with one on the WN/Asiana near-miss earlier this summer. Yay, let's totally freak people out about flying!!


User currently offlineQ400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

UALFAson, do you have a link to the footage? Thanks!!

User currently offlineN801DM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7898 times:

"A MD-11 can land with maximum take-off weight. If this is necessary, the whole aircraft needs n intensive inspection for structure damage. Probably the gear will be written off."


When an aircraft comes in after a over max landing weight landing. It is the captains responsibility to report it and write it up in the aircraft log. He also must state if it is a smooth or rough landing. After maintenance review of the log they will perform an overweight landing inspection per the aircraft maintenance manual. I have done this several times on the following aircraft B727, B747-200, and B747-400, MD82.83.88. With no damage noted.

I hope this helps!

Fly safe!
N801DM


User currently offlineStarlionblue From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7766 times:

Any plane is certified, in an emergency, to land at MTOW, but if you land "too heavy" your landing speed will be higher, increasing risk. You will also have to do a heavy landing check. Safer to dump the fuel if there is no absolute requirement to get the plane on the ground ASAP.

With smaller aircraft, the amount of fuel is relatively much smaller, so there neither fuel dumping capability, nor a need for it.


User currently offlineBaw716 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7638 times:

On August 10, 2002, A BA 747-400 departing SYD had a small fire in the forward cargo hold, which was detected on the EICAS in the cockpit almost immediately after rotation.

As the crew was smelling smoke, they declared a MAYDAY and immediately returned to the airport without dumping fuel. With 270 pax on board and fuel for 8+ hours of flying, it was pretty heavy, but not near MTOW. In any case, the aircraft landed safely, all passengers evacuated and upon inspection there was indeed a small fire in the forward hold that was immediately put down. There was no major structural damage done to the aircraft due to the overweight landing.

There are pictures in the a.net pictures section. Sort by SYD/BA/Incidents and it will come up right away.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7528 times:

>>>Just curious, what happens when a jumbo dumps all of it's fuel

They don't dump -all- of it, just enough to get down to a safe landing weight..

Dump all of the fuel, and the aircraft tends not to fly all that well...  Big grin


User currently offlineSFOintern From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7500 times:

Did the passengers on the flight get distributed to other airlines? Or will Cathay run another flight?

User currently offlineOB1504 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7261 times:

Did the passengers on the flight get distributed to other airlines? Or will Cathay run another flight?

I'm not sure if all the passengers would want to get on a 'plane so soon after an emergency landing.  Big grin

Good day!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineMr.BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Every aircraft is certified to land at MTOW. The landing gears are designed to take the stress. However as stated it has to be reported and logged for checks when a landing is conducted at a weight above it's maximum landing weight.

For engine failure normally fuel is dumped but when you ahve a fire onboard, you have to get the aircraft on ground as soon as possible, in this case, without dumping any fuel.


User currently offlineN1120a From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

>Somebody must have gotten the head's up b/c there's footage of the plane landing from at least 2 angles plus interviews with pax inside TBIT after deplaning.<

They almost always have someone down at LAX to do news in case anything happens, a celebrity does something, plane crash, etc. It is morbid, but the LA stations are there. They almost always stand between T1 and T2 and you see a WN plane parked behind them.

>Then they the followed that story with one on the WN/Asiana near-miss earlier this summer. Yay, let's totally freak people out about flying!!<

Were they accurate about it, or sensationalistic? They did catch it before anything happened. My uncle is in ATC and the Asiana go around was a pretty serious deal as far as the controller was concerned. He had just checked out and was promptly decertified and had to go through all training again. At LAX, that could mean almost a year, and such a loss of seniority that his days off will suck.


User currently offlineAirliner777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4046 times:

ZKSUJ, considering it could be an engine fire then it would be safer to land with basically empty fuel tanks.

Not necessarily. Every engine has two fire extinguishing bottles. Now, if the fire is not out after the deployment of these two bottles, then you might be going through a serious situation, and an immediate landing should be recommended. Therefore, it wouldn't be a good idea to spend a whole lot of time getting rid of the fuel if the aircraft has an ongoing fire.

My 0.02¢  Big grin
Airliner777


User currently offlineUALFAson From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Sorry--didn't check to follow-up after I posted.

Haven't seen the video on the Internet. www.abc7.com usually doesn't post streaming video of its stories. I meant it was "good video" in the sense that the reporter actually had moving pictures to go with her story instead of just file footage of a random CX plane. There's really nothing much to see. Remember, it happened at night, so it's just footage of a normally-lit CX 747 approaching and landing normally amidst the lights of L.A.

The reporter didn't explicitly say what happened to the pax, but closed by saying there was another CX flight leaving at midnight that night, so I guess they didn't get rebooked on other carriers.

In addition to the areas b/t T1 and T2, a lot of reporters do shots b/t T3 and TBIT and TBIT and T4 so you get the taxiing 747s behind you.


User currently offlineZK-NBT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

Glad everything turned out alright!

I didn't think they dumped fuel when there is a fire warning indicator incase of sparks or something, well atleast that was the case for the SQ tailstike in AKL.


User currently offlineMr.BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

I think it really depends. For engine fire, if extinguished and shut down, fuel dump is considered. But if fire is onboard, say in the cabin or cargo hold I think they'd be heading straight back and land as soon as possible...

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...
Continental Emergency Landing At LAX? posted Thu Jun 24 2004 20:45:22 by Drerx7
Delta 16 Makes Emergency Landing At LAX posted Fri Oct 27 2000 20:21:33 by WISHIHADALIFE
KLM Emergency Landing At Lax! posted Mon Aug 28 2000 03:50:41 by I-96
Emergency Landing At JFK? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:53:34 by ZRHnerd
Emergency Landing At TUS posted Tue Nov 28 2006 04:43:00 by RedTailDTW
AA Emergency Landing At DAB? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 22:24:48 by RL757PVD
Smoke On DE A320 Forces Emergency Landing At HAM posted Thu Nov 2 2006 21:08:52 by LTU932
Southwest 305 Emergency Landing At MDW Today posted Fri Oct 20 2006 15:43:51 by FlyMD
C172 Makes Emergency Landing At Opa Locka posted Tue Sep 19 2006 22:53:05 by AirTranTUS
AirNZ 737 Emergency Landing At AKL posted Mon Sep 11 2006 23:05:14 by Axio