FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15097 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"
Contrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1818 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15014 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.
Willyj From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 467 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14940 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.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12338 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14868 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.
LY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 851 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14818 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.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14736 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**
AirbusBoeing From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14700 times:
flying over the ocean with one engine left....that's scary.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8553 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14700 times:
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14554 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"
FLY2LIM From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1183 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14232 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?
Eatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14197 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?
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14136 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.
Pilot3033 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 111 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12233 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...
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?"
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
FlyMeToTheMoon From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 242 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12108 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.
F14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10725 times:
RyDawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 818 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10329 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...
Flight7E7 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9980 times:
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 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
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 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 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 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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2005, 959 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, 
From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
