Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout  
User currently offlineBigSky123 From Slovenia, joined Dec 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14738 times:

My brother informed me just now that they were already about an hour and a half away from the Western coast of Europe bound for JFK when the Captain told them the right engine on their 767 went out and they need to turn around. They landed in Santiago de Compostela with fire trucks standing by and nearly 300 passengers were deboarded for a sleep over.

The interesting part is, my brother said he never even noticed any difference after only one engine was working.

What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

[Edited 2007-09-15 20:16:22]

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14721 times:

brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider


User currently offlineBY188B From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 14697 times:

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

Watched Air crash investigation re BA009 last night when all 4 engines failed at FL370, it said for every 1 kilometre the aircraft dropped, it could travel 15 kilometres forward when the 747 was gliding.



next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14530 times:

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

That depends on how well the pilot can maintain best glide speed (which differs for each aircraft). In the Gimli Glider incident, the pilot used 220 kts in his 767. With that, he got about a 12:1 ratio, meaning it could fly 12 miles forward and lose only 1 mile of altitude. Another way to look at it is that for every 1000 ft loss, it moved forward 2 nm. So an aircraft at say 40000 ft would only make it 80 nm, which is not very far when your out in the middle of the ocean. But we need to remember how unlikely this occurs. And if an aircraft only looses one engine then they will always be able to get to an airport because they must follow ETOPS rules, which states they must always be in range of an airport even if they lose an engine.


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14502 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 3):
And if an aircraft only looses one engine then they will always be able to get to an airport because they must follow ETOPS rules, which states they must always be in range of an airport even if they lose an engine.

Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field. All that ETOPS stipulates is that the aircraft must not file or fly a flightplan that takes them more than the ETOPS certified single engine flying time, for the engine/airframe combination, away from a suitable diversion airport. It does not guarantee that they will be withing gliding range of any airport.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineBigSky123 From Slovenia, joined Dec 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14404 times:

i was the PAX on a flight in question today. With only one engine on, we landed safely in Compostela. All PAX accomodated in hotels now, awaiting for a spare plane picking us up tomorrow around 1pm.

User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4676 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14361 times:

Quoting BY188B (Reply 2):

Watched Air crash investigation re BA009 last night when all 4 engines failed at FL370, it said for every 1 kilometre the aircraft dropped, it could travel 15 kilometres forward when the 747 was gliding.

1:12 gliding ratio, that's not even half bad. I've been in gliders who did worse



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14345 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

Technically? Yes.
Statistically? Not really.

There's never been a dual independent flameout in more than two decades and millions of hours of ETOPS operation... and the probability of such actually happening, is smaller than the likelihood that multiple other failures would doom/befall the aircraft well in advance.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14325 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

Why? Aircraft have one engine go out quite a bit. Aircraft rarely ever have 2 or more engines go out.

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
The interesting part is, my brother said he never even noticed any difference after only one engine was working.

Unless you are near the engine, you won't notice. I was at an exit row window seat when our DL 757 had to have an engine shut down due to a low oil pressure indicator, and all I could tell from a pax perspective was that my engine was a little bit louder (the other side was shut down).

Now, they did some other things like cycle the power and shut off the lights for a few seconds in order to reset some systems, but as far as flight goes, felt the same. And once we landed, they couldn't fix the engine so we had to get a new plane out of LAS and continue on to LAX.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

It isn't "quite possible" but "very improbable." Possible is one thing, "quite" is not the qualifier to use, as it implies a common event. It is very, very, very improbable that the other engine flames out on an ETOPS aircraft or on a 3 or 4 holer unless there is an underlying, non-engine related problem like no fuel, pilot error into a severe angle (stall), volcanic ash, etc.

These events are so rare, it is not accurate to call them "quite possible." It only worsens the fear some people have of flying when they hear or read people make statements like yours.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14293 times:

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

I didn't really state my sentance clearly. I did mean one engine only. And I said nothing about losing a second engine. But yes, this is possible, and as ConcordeBoy said, this hasn't happened in a long time.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14223 times:

Engine failures are not truly independent.

Your odds of flameout #1 are very low. The odds of the next flameout are at least 10 times higher IMO, but still very low.

When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

For me, it would be scary. There are always unknowns in the case of a flameout. Somebody screwed up, probably. Did they make the same mistake on both engines, the possibility is always there.

I agree that ETOPS is a safe system, but not so sure I agree with the odds of a dual-flameout. Those odds are relatively high, once flameout #1 has already occurred. You are not in very good shape on 1 engine with a demonstrated failure already on your specific aircraft.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14200 times:

I have been a passenger on a 767 that had to have the engine shutdown due to loss of oil. It was an intentional shutdown but not doing so could have destroyed the engine. The flight was enroute from Brazil to ATL when the engine was shut down over the northern Caribbean. The captain and dispatcher considered going to FLL but wet to NAS instead. We did tight circles over NAS. DL sent another aircraft down withn 3 hrs and took us onto ATL. It was noticeably quiet on my side of the aircraft after the engine was shut down but the plane still handled very well .

DL has no plane that can hold 300 passengers and crew on an international flight - even their 764s in domestic configuration. Flt. 161 usually operates with a 763 so the total passengers plus crew was probably more like 220 if it was completely full.


User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14165 times:

Dont want to sound negative but DL 763's dont hold anywhere near 300 pax, their ER version have around 215.

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

as concordeboy pointed out, dual engine failure is extremely rare, and incase this happens, the crew will obviously try to restart the engines in what is called a emergency engine restart procedure (I saw that on the BA flight) on air emergency. If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14137 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 12):
If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.

but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14077 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 12):
If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.

but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.

You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS. Luckily for the 306 passengers and crew, it was within gliding range of the Azores.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...nd_accidents/Ladkin-AirTransat.pdf

It was this aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kim Philipp Piskol
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Scott McGeachy


I'm also reminded of this DC-9-30 incident in 1970, unfortunately with 23 fatalities of the 63 aboard:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700502-0

[Edited 2007-09-15 23:25:23]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 13966 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
The odds of the next flameout are at least 10 times higher IMO,

Fortunately, opinions without any evidence are not going to cause crashes.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
but it's never happened...

Why should that stop people from overreacting?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS.

I'm pretty sure WT is saying it's never resulted in a crash, and thus "repenting" is kind of overdoing it. The odds of dying in a car wreck on the way to the airport are higher, so should we all repent our sins before each and every turn of the car keys? Of course not.

It's amazing how everyone is overreacting to this shutdown, while they generally don't have the same reaction to all the other shutdowns posted on a.net weekly, from engine fires to bird strikes to oil leaks.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13935 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.

isnt it funny how they keep on talking about "incase of a water landing", sad thing is the likeliness of ever surviving a water landing on a under-the wing engine aircraft is extremely slim, and even aircraft like a DC-9 with engines on the top dont stand a chance, but as you stated its never happened.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS. Luckily for the 306 passengers and crew, it was within gliding range of the Azores.

Well yes that is a case of engine failure but DUE TO FUEL EXHAUSTION, not because the engines just failed, and remember that flight was extremely lucky, if they had filed a flightplan on a more northern route, this would have been a horrible disaster.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlinePositiverate From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1590 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13740 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

Other then the fact that the airplane is a 767 (although AC's was a -200), there is absolutely nothing similar about that incident to this one.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
There's never been a dual independent flameout in more than two decades and millions of hours of ETOPS operation... and the probability of such actually happening, is smaller than the likelihood that multiple other failures would doom/befall the aircraft well in advance.

On that note, I believe (but am not sure) that the systems are independent of each other.


User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1459 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13638 times:

I have to get this off my chest. Today I just happened to be returning from Europe to the states and we were just about 20 west when we heard the Delta 161 announce on 121.5 and "all stations, all stations" call. The crew was obviously busy and doing something that none of us ever have to hope to do. I can imagine the flurry of activity in coordinating the course reversal (last I heard them they were down to 21,500' and on a 100 degree heading) with Shanwick, contacting dispatch, advising the Flight Attendants and digging out the charts for familiarization for the alternate airport.

What concerned me afterward and has bothered me most of this evening was the conversations that ensued on 121.5 during this event. After the initial call by DL161 several other pilots starting asking him questions. One was about whether or not he had switched EICAS computers (he indicated it was a loss of oil pressure). There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working. You can argue who build the best over a pint at the pub but please for the sanity of it all never ask asinine questions in the middle of an emergency. Allow these pilots to do their jobs and offer assistance but do not add to the workload by this type of banter.

My apologies for the rant but it was very disheartening to hear what amounted to a group of lookieloos at m.85. I am glad the DL pilots were able to get the airplane on the ground safely and I am sure they will have a story to tell at the pub tonight.


User currently offlineTwinOtter From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13572 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

Definitely, Flighty, that is the first thing a pilot thinks. Recall Eastern 855 in 1983, an L-1011. The captain shut the tail engine down due to a low oil pressure indicator. As he was returning to Miami, engines 1 and 3 also indicated low oil pressure and flamed out. He descended without power, then restarted #2 long enough to for him to make the runway at MIA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1984/AAR8404.htm


User currently offlineJbmitt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13551 times:

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 18):
There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working.

You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.


User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4194 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12782 times:

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 20):
You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.

There are minimal differences between the way the situation is handled between the two. There were a few PW "rollbacks" a little while ago, but it is policy not to relit a shutdown engine in flight unless absolutely necessary. I agree it was an unecessary comment... and the "why are you diverting" comments were totally out of order. Everyone is curious when something abnormal happens... let them take care of the situation unless you have some pertinant assistance to offer.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12666 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 16):
snt it funny how they keep on talking about "incase of a water landing", sad thing is the likeliness of ever surviving a water landing on a under-the wing engine aircraft is extremely slim, and even aircraft like a DC-9 with engines on the top dont stand a chance, but as you stated its never happened.

There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries... many more of airplanes crash-landing on water with deaths but many survivors, most of whom owe their lives to their life vests.

I shouldn't even need to point out specific cases; do some basic research yourself and you'll find at least several with even a cursory search.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineTwinOtter From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12450 times:

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 22):
There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries

There have? I'm thnking of airliners here, but the only one that comes to mind is Ethopian 961, a 767, in 1996. 123 of the 175 passengers and crew died.

Which planes are you thinking of that landed "on the water with few or no injuries"?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6743 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11628 times:

Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 19):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

Definitely, Flighty, that is the first thing a pilot thinks. Recall Eastern 855 in 1983, an L-1011. The captain shut the tail engine down due to a low oil pressure indicator. As he was returning to Miami, engines 1 and 3 also indicated low oil pressure and flamed out. He descended without power, then restarted #2 long enough to for him to make the runway at MIA.

Actually... the Eastern L-1011 you reference is actually an argument for why twins maintained under ETOPS rules are actually safer than tri-jets or quad-jets which are not maintained under ETOPS rules. One of the key rules of ETOPS maintenance is that a different set of mechanics must work on each engine (and if I recall correctly, the maintenance has to occur at different times as well). What happened to the Eastern L10 stemmed from the same mechanic making an identical error in the maintenance of all three engines; this would NEVER be permitted in an ETOPS maintenance regime.


25 BigSky123 : Delta told PAX this morning, there will be a substitute aircraft brought in around 1pm, with planned departure @ 2pm.
26 Snaiks : Actually it has a lot to do, sometimes when you are under stress, and see something "red" on the EICAS, you panic, start thinking of what is happenin
27 Mcdu : Perhaps my observations were all lost in transition. The questions were of an inquisitive tone and not of an assisting tone. The crew informed that t
28 WAH64D : Agreed. I made the reference only to highlight the point that aircraft flying under ETOPS rules are not necessarily always within range of a suitable
29 BigSky123 : The Epilogue to this incident: the 767 (reg N173DZ) is still sitting in SCQ waiting for a replacement oil pump. The flight to JFK takes off at 2:30 pm
30 Mcdu : JB, I don't feel I am naive at all, however your impolite implication is not lost on me. I am curious as to what types of differences are listed in t
31 Pilotaydin : we are required on 121.5 or ANY frequncy to help out the people in trouble unless a radio silence has been issued. You'd think we're up there for tho
32 Mcdu : I am not here to debate resumes but I have over 25+ years of airline flying and over 13 years of Atlantic crossing flying in ETOPS. The offering of a
33 Post contains images TwinOtter : Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god care whether or not we believe in it?
34 Post contains links and images 747fan : This plane was a GE CF6-80C2B4-powered 763ER, in case anyone was wanting to know. It is one of their newer 767's, delivered to Delta on 2/11/1998, ac
35 Flighty : Whoa. That is very interesting. It makes me feel better about the whole thing. Thanks ScottB.
36 Baw716 : Mcdu--- I cannot believe what I am reading. The freq 121.5 is for emergency transmission only. While I understand pilots trying to assist, there is a
37 Post contains images Avi8tir : I have a question about this. I was on DL 160 on the 13th, which arrived FCO on the 14th. Is there any way to find out if this same aircraft that lost
38 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : "airplanes" you say? ...Hmm, perhaps. 200ton+ jets carrying as many/more passengers? ...I'd like you to cite some examples please. ...same reason he/
39 747fan : Most likely, no. The plane that operated DL160 likely would've flown back to either JFK or ATL a few hours later. N173DZ, the plane that "lost" the e
40 Positiverate : I'm fairly confident that the pilots in the cockpit of DL160 knew what kinds of engines they had on their airplane and had the appropriate engine pro
41 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : Not quite 200+ tons, but one example was the JL DC-8-62 that landed in San Francisco Bay about 2 miles short of the SFO runway in November 1968. http
42 BAW716 : Spacecadet, As a pilot, I would rather land on a grass field than on water, especially with engines slug under the wings (90% of commercial aircraft
43 Mcdu : You can count me in your corner on this one. Water is just as hard as pavement when hit at a bad angle. For how a 767 would react to a ditching one n
44 BAW716 : Ah, you just reminded me of the ET 767-200 which ditched in the water in Brazil. As soon as the wingtip hit the water, the aircraft spun around and y
45 Positiverate : It ditched in Africa somewhere...
46 EarlyNFF : that was east of african coast, NOT brazil
47 Post contains links Viscount724 : Video of that ditching after being hijacked and running out of fuel (50 survivors of 175 aboard): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GAg5Y5WK24 Incident
48 Flighty : That 767 apparently was not an ideal ditch. It was dipped a wing -- clearly not a good plan. It hit at 200 knots according to wikipedia. Not a good di
49 BAW716 : Thank you all for the clarification. I had Brazil on the brain for some reason...I believe it was actually somewhere off the southeast coast of Africa
50 Positiverate : They had sufficient fuel to get to their destination. They were hijacked mid flight. fromt he summary: "Flight ET961 had taken off from Addis Ababa f
51 Flighty : You are right it's a tough situation. I am not fit to judge those pilots. I am just some guy on the internet. But it sure seems like they didn't adeq
52 Positiverate : How can you possibly make that statement. You have no idea what was going on in the cockpit, in the air, or on the airplane to pass judgement on what
53 Post contains images 787KQ : Thanks for your responses to Flighty, Positiverate. All of them.
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...
Eurofly To Operate FCO-JFK Year Round posted Sat Jul 28 2007 16:21:41 by Nycfly75
Delta 777 Crews At JFK posted Mon Jun 18 2007 06:03:23 by RJpieces
Flying EI JFK-DUB posted Fri Oct 20 2006 22:55:25 by NYC777
Aerolineas Argentinas Stopped Flying To JFK!? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 18:55:17 by Gusnyc
Delta 757 Flying Into...? posted Mon Jun 19 2006 10:17:05 by Jmhluv2fly
Delta 767-300 Going JFK-PWM Today? posted Sun Jun 11 2006 19:09:57 by ChrisNH
EL AL Flying AMS-JFK? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 01:17:52 by Levg79
Delta Starts Flying To DUS Today posted Tue Apr 4 2006 08:02:34 by Airlittoralguy
Delta To Beef Up JFK With Turbo Props? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 17:09:31 by Flyboy80
BA 747 Returns To JFK After Engine Sparks posted Sun Jan 1 2006 01:50:34 by AerospaceFan