Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA 777 With An Engine Problem  
User currently offlineTPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17276 times:

An AA 777 LAX-LHR landed at JFK after an engine failed...all are well..
details here:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/26/D8J3LN406.html
TPAnx


I read the news today..oh boy
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTonytifao From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 1032 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17114 times:

I wonder what engine? GE? PW? or RR? Which engines do AA 777s have?

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6961 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17096 times:

Quoting Tonytifao (Reply 1):
I wonder what engine? GE? PW? or RR? Which engines do AA 777s have?

RR Trent 800s.


User currently offlineTepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 210 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17079 times:

Quoting Tonytifao (Reply 1):
Which engines do AA 777s have?

I believe they have Trent 800's on their 50-ish B777s.

(I await a snide comment from "certain quarters" at this point...)


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17047 times:

Darn those RR Trent engines, lol.

I'm glad everything ended safely. Congrats to the flight crew on putting it down - and keeping the 777 safety record spotless.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16964 times:

The first thing I though of was how often this happens to an ETOP engine. This must be extremely rare.

Second, I wondered why the Captain selected JFK. I can understand wanting to go to an AA city, but it looks to me like BOS would have been closer. Of course, I wasn't in the cockpit at the time so I don't know what all went into that decision. I'm sure the skipper considered all the options.

I'm glad everyone's ok. At least it happened over the Atlantic, where land is a lot closer than over the Pacific, where land could, in some cases, be hours away.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineWillyj From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16890 times:

AA has many more flights to LHR from JFK than BOS - as does their Oneworld partner BA. Perhaps they thought they could reaccomodate their passengers more quickly at JFK as opposed to BOS? Also, it said the plane landed within 1/2 an hour, so the plane must have been quite close to JFK.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16818 times:

AA itself has major ops at JFK, better options for transfer of pax to other possible flights (including partner BA), a long runway and timing probably all played into it.
Any idea of what caused this problem? Is it a major (like a component failure) or small like a minor oil leak or a false reading?
At least everyone is safe on the ground.


User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 858 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16768 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 6):
Second, I wondered why the Captain selected JFK. I can understand wanting to go to an AA city, but it looks to me like BOS would have been closer. Of course, I wasn't in the cockpit at the time so I don't know what all went into that decision. I'm sure the skipper considered all the options.

AA's JFK Maintenance ops have more capability than BOS. Especially with engine changes, etc.



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16686 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 6):
I can understand wanting to go to an AA city, but it looks to me like BOS would have been closer.

In addition to the reasons mentioned above, AA could probably roll out another 777 to bring the passengers to London. I assume that is what happened--In that case, is it the same crew?

**It appears that AA134 departed JFK at 10:49 AM, about six hours after the diversion into JFK**

[Edited 2006-07-26 18:32:22]

User currently offlineAirbusBoeing From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16650 times:

flying over the ocean with one engine left....that's scary.

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16650 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 10):
is it the same crew?

Depends on Duty time

Im glad he chose JFK over BOS. I heard JFK has a major AA mx facility there.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16504 times:

Well, my general opinion remains that the GE90 is the engine of choice for the 777, but the Trent 800 is a solid engine with a very good service history. Engine failures on 777s are rare, I wonder if the cause of the engine will be attributed to maintanance, or a flaw of the engine itself.

We'll have to wait and see.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineFLY2LIM From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1185 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16182 times:

Quoting Willyj (Reply 7):
Perhaps they thought they could reaccomodate their passengers more quickly at JFK as opposed to BOS?

Call me silly, but isn't the first thought on an emergency to find the nearest airport suitable for the aircraft, and worry about the logistics later?

FLY2LIM



Faucett. La primera linea aerea del Peru.
User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16147 times:

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 25):
Call me silly, but isn't the first thought on an emergency to find the nearest airport suitable for the aircraft, and worry about the logistics later?

Sometimes that comes after cash expenses unfortunately.

E-M-B

[Edited 2006-07-26 19:50:58]


Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16086 times:

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 25):
Call me silly, but isn't the first thought on an emergency to find the nearest airport suitable for the aircraft, and worry about the logistics later?

In a medical emergency sure, but with something that must not have been threatning to the safety of the pax it was ok to continue to JFK.

Last summer I was on a 747 flying across the Atlantic that had an engine fire; we were about 2 hours out of JFK but still returned there.


User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16062 times:

i'm pretty suprise that the plane would have been 30 minutes form JFK because LAX-LHR normaly pass way up north in Québec province... and Yul which is south of the provnce is 45 minutes flight to JFK???

User currently offlineTonytifao From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 1032 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15974 times:

Might be a dumb question. If both engines fail over the water, what is the probability of a safe landing in the water?

User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14450 times:

to my initial question from LAX-LHR what was it doing so close of either JFK or BOS was suppose to fly alot northern route...

the Engine probably failed a lot sooner than they deviate to JFK, but 30 minutes from JFK when the engine fail is almost impossible, because normal route would take LAX-LHR in middle to upper Québec province???


User currently offlinePilot3033 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14183 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 44):
to my initial question from LAX-LHR what was it doing so close of either JFK or BOS was suppose to fly alot northern route...

the Engine probably failed a lot sooner than they deviate to JFK, but 30 minutes from JFK when the engine fail is almost impossible, because normal route would take LAX-LHR in middle to upper Québec province???

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...4/history/20060726/0352Z/KLAX/KJFK
You seem to be correct.
I recall seeing a documentary where a Boeing test pilot flew a 777 simulator from taxi to takeoff to landing on one engine. The purpose they stated (IIRC) for that ability was for this type of situation, or if you were to say lose one over the mid Atlantic of Pacific.

My guess is that the pilots said, "Ok, we don't want to go all the way to LHR...too far and our speed and economy are greatly reduced. Where can we go? Canada? Nah...too much hassel and we can make it further. BOS? Not a good MX base, and bad for the pax. JFK? Looks good, large MX, good runways, easy for the PAX, let's call the company and see what they think?"

Glad all ended well.
-Matt



-Matt
User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14144 times:

Quoting Pilot3033 (Reply 49):

Totally agree with you but form where they were... it took more than 30 minutes... From AA it was very good to JFK... but if PAX would have been in any sort of emergency/danger they would have land at either YUL or YQB

Thank you for the info and the map


User currently offlineFlyMeToTheMoon From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 242 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14058 times:

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 11):
flying over the ocean with one engine left....that's scary.

Some people flew above the water without any engines - Air Transat 330 comes to mind. Or the Gander glider - Air Canada 767.

Regardless, this is what ETOPS is for and it appears that both the 777 and the crew performed well.

Happy Flying (on 1,2,3,4 or no engines at all)



Fly me to the moon... but not through LHR!
User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12675 times:

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 50):
Or the Gander glider - Air Canada 767.

I think it is known as the Gimli Glider.



"He is risen, as He said."
User currently offlineRyDawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12279 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 42):
to my initial question from LAX-LHR what was it doing so close of either JFK or BOS was suppose to fly alot northern route...

the Engine probably failed a lot sooner than they deviate to JFK, but 30 minutes from JFK when the engine fail is almost impossible, because normal route would take LAX-LHR in middle to upper Québec province???

Yah, convenient for AA to land at JFK, but a little awkward it was flying such a southerly course...


Route Flown:


Figuring it was 1 hour out of JFK with the failure, here's a Great Circle Route showing a 500 nm radius of JFK :


[Edited 2006-07-27 00:42:55]


You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineFlight7E7 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11930 times:

2AA134/25JUL«
AA0134/25JUL
‡DTE CHNG FLT‡ ORIG 25JUL
LAX 835P T4 43
JFK ‡ 8 8B 552A 900A
LHR T3 318 840P
4LAX/OUT2035 OFF2051 *2251
2JFK/IN0552 *0454
3JFK/ETD1020 DIV LHR *0902
4JFK/OUT1015 OFF1048 *0949
1LHR/OVR LHR TO JFK ETA0510 REMARKS MECH
FTWDP COPELAND *0307
2LHR/IN2200 *1609

INTO LHR AT 2200 hours...all is well. congrats to the crew....first I have heard of a long haul divert for 777 in a long time. Gotta love her!

Cheers.


25 Brilondon : This is not a dumb question as many people believe that water would be a softer landing than on land. Unfortunately at the speed that the T7 would be
26 Post contains links Texasaggie : Are you referring to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? It landed on water after being hijacked and running out of fuel. 123 of the 175 passengers on boa
27 YULYMX : somewhere in south america a 767 the wing it first than broke some die and some survive
28 Pilot3033 : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopi...t_961
29 Litz : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopi...t_961 It's very, very important to note that the Ethiopian 767 was not a controlled ditching ..
30 Revo1059 : It would be interesting to see a test done with some old plane that is on it's way out, and to see how 'smooth' it could land on the water........
31 FlyMIA : Only planes which make water landings are sea planes. All other planes crash on the water or "ditch". I guess they just say water landing to try to m
32 Post contains links and images Comorin : Not true. Jack Lemmon lands a 747 in the Bermuda Triangle in Airport '77 and lotsa passengers survived... Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075648
33 Post contains images N174UA : Ummm...no. Remember, F/O Chambers hijacked the plane, and Jack Lemmon and F/E and the pax were knocked out. Chambers took it below radar and flew rig
34 ComeAndGo : It's not awkward. Many airlines fly that same southerly route on LAX - LHR flights. The jetstream determines the flight route.
35 Carfield : THanks for the information... that explained why my friend's flight, AA 167, from JFK to NRT, was slightly delayed and had to wait for the morning inb
36 ADXMatt : Several of you mentioned that it was strange that they were so close to JFK due to the route. ..... You are all assuming the engine failed/shut down w
37 Post contains images UA777222 : This makes a lot of sense. The 777 has something like 180 min of ETOPs time so even if they were that far north, they would have been alright. United
38 UA777222 : Oh, if the FAA or Aircraft Man. decide to take into LROPS for their aircraft, will it allow for longer one-engine operations? Mind you, I was told thi
39 ADXMatt : Hi Matt UA777222.... The 777 is certified for longer then 180 min not sure to what number. (CO is 207 min on their 777's) What I was suggesting is tha
40 Eddie757 : There are so many facts to consider in the cockpit when you're involved in this kind of situations... Fortunately, everything went OK. Nowadays, havin
41 Pilot21 : Hey If it had been a BA B744, then the PAX would have made it to Manchester before the plane would have had to divert due to low fuel indications!! R
42 Post contains images Comorin : Oops, I stand corrected. Serves me right for trying to be clever
43 Starlionblue : The specific 777 is only certified for 180 minutes if the airline keeps it maintained, equipped and operated to the same certification. I don't know
44 Flyingbronco05 : There was a topic on this that came out 2 hours before this one, yet that one was deleted. Anybody know why?
45 MarkusBurkhard : Also on the Atlantic the next Airport can be hours away... Remember the LX A332 that diverted to YHZ on one engine in February? We departed in MIA an
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...
767 Lands In Halifax after an engine problem posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:18:08 by Legallykev
Planes With An Engine On Its Tail? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 10:16:30 by Terminal688
AA 777 With 4 Engines? posted Wed Sep 17 2003 03:51:31 by Flyingbronco05
AA 777 - Starting To Roll With FAs Standing posted Thu Aug 17 2006 17:30:39 by Dolinja777
An MD11 With No #2 Engine? Surely Not! posted Fri Jul 14 2006 16:31:52 by CHRISBA777ER
Why Is An AA 777 In Norfolk? posted Fri Jun 2 2006 23:49:22 by Kaputt
VS 346 With Engine Problem At LHR Last Night? posted Mon Dec 5 2005 07:34:52 by Star_world
Help With AA 777 Registrations posted Tue Mar 16 2004 10:37:10 by NG737PSR
Help With AA 777 Regs posted Mon Dec 8 2003 03:16:40 by Riley
Help With An Ex-AA MD-11 posted Fri Oct 17 2003 20:31:59 by AM