Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA 777 LHR-ORD Makes Emergency Landing In YYZ  
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7934 posts, RR: 54
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20764 times:

I was just on an AA 777 from LHR to ORD, AA87 Feb 2, and an hour out of ORD the pilot's PA was literally, "There's a problem with the aircraft. We're going to Toronto. Over." OVER?! WTF?! Crew got out fire extinguishers and O2 masks at the exits. No special safety demo, cabin crew wouldn't say what the problem was (don't blame em), but I was very scared cos the pilot's PA couldn't have sounded more distracted and abnormal, plus we were so close to ORD, I mean, remember that BA 747 that flew from California to (almost!) LHR on three engines? So to divert just an hour from the destination, over dry land etc... If we'd lost an engine we would have continued to ORD - therefore, something worse than losing an engine. About halfway down in the descent I could definitely tell we were flying normally so that made me feel a lot happier, plus YYZ is my favourite city in North America. We landed nice and smooth with piles of snow on the ground, pilot came back on and said there'd been a burning smell, electrical problems (btw all the IFE and laptop power all died and didn't come back, about an hour after takeoff from LHR, so we already had some prior form as a sick aircraft). The YYZ FD scanned the aircraft using infrared to see if there was a fire anywhere on the plane. So most of the excitement over with, eventually it turned into usual airline bullshit, they put us at a domestic stand so when the crew ran out of hours after a couple of hours of trying to work out what the problem was, with firemen and engineers trooping up and down the aisles, they terminated the flight but we had to be bussed to an international gate, then it took AA three hours to get the bags off cos Air Canada didn't have any spare 777 loaders at that time (they would have been using all their own gear to get their own 777s out to Europe, this was like, 4pm-6pm) but I have some great friends here so at least I'm on a friend's couch smoking fags and playing with the dogs while everyone else on the flight is at the YYZ Sheraton.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTCT From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20712 times:

To bad they didn't deploy the emergency slides,you would'eve had some fun! Big grin Big grin Big grin

User currently offlineDTWAGENT From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20653 times:

If they has some kind of warning after leaving LHR. Why did they wait until YYZ to land? I would think they would have gone to any airport that could handle that type of aircraft. It could not have been that bad if they waited until YYZ to land.

chuck


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20602 times:

An AA 757 en route from SJU to PHL also made an emergency landing at PBI on Wednesday due to smoke in the cockpit.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/break...cockpit_of_Phila_-bound_plane.html
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/216007


User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1606 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20514 times:

Wow, I may just have to head out to YYZ tomorrow for hte first time in a long time.

Anyone know where she is parked?

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlinePU752 From Uruguay, joined Mar 2005, 584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20269 times:

Im not really sure if they'd have continued if suffered an engine failure, they probably will land at nearest airport available...........anyways glad everything went ok.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 20102 times:

Sounds like there was a significant electrical problem and with the earier shutdown of the IFE, I am surpriesed they carried on to Toronto, and not get down a lot sooner elsewhere like SNN or eastern Canada.

User currently offlineCBPhoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19890 times:



Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
I mean, remember that BA 747 that flew from California to (almost!) LHR on three engines? So to divert just an hour from the destination, over dry land etc... If we'd lost an engine we would have continued to ORD - therefore, something worse than losing an engine

First off, What the crew did on the BA flight was wrong, and against regulations. Any professional crew would land the aircraft as soon as practical, and most definately would have notjust continued to ORD!

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
Sounds like there was a significant electrical problem and with the earier shutdown of the IFE, I am surpriesed they carried on to Toronto, and not get down a lot sooner elsewhere like SNN or eastern Canada.

What probably ended up happening, is there was a problem with the IFE and they shut it down just after departure. Somewhere over Canada, probably just to the north of YYZ, the crew smelled a burning smell, put the IFE shutdown earlier and the burning smell together, and thought they had an electrical fire on there hands. They landed, as they should have and the situation diffused itself.

Good work to the crew, although I might have wanted a little more explanation then, theres a problem and were landing in YYZ, but I guess that might have been the right thing for the general passenger who might not know anything about planes!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19818 times:



Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 7):
What the crew did on the BA flight was wrong, and against regulations.

Not to hijack the thread, but can you site the specific FAR that was violated? And what was done to the BA crew? I suggest you check the AAIB report.

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
If we'd lost an engine we would have continued to ORD - therefore, something worse than losing an engine.

On 2 engine aircraft, engine failures are handled completely different than 3/4 engine aircraft. On a 2 engine aircraft, the crew must divert to the nearest (in terms of time) airport, while on a 3/4 engine aircraft may continue on to it's destination as long as certain things have been considered. However, any aircraft, when there is a possibility of fire will land ASAP at the nearest suitable airport.


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19793 times:

Not being a scaremonger but maybe it is time to ground the 777 fleet for a full and complete investigation. Maybe those giant engines on those wings and the heavy body are taking its toll after all these years.
Since that is the very same recipe for the 787, maybe look to see if there are safety issues involved in such a construction.
There is too much vested interest involved in pretending that twin jets are completely safe over long sea passages. That applies to Airbus and Boeing and the airlines that fly them on those routes.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19655 times:



Quoting Babybus (Reply 9):

but most of the later T7 problems have been AF with engine shut downs (up to 2 now?)
(the BA T7 ran out of fuel didn't it?) and this was a "burning smell"



yep.
User currently offlineGayStudPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 450 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19587 times:



Quoting Babybus (Reply 9):
Not being a scaremonger but maybe it is time to ground the 777 fleet for a full and complete investigation. Maybe those giant engines on those wings and the heavy body are taking its toll after all these years.
Since that is the very same recipe for the 787, maybe look to see if there are safety issues involved in such a construction.
There is too much vested interest involved in pretending that twin jets are completely safe over long sea passages. That applies to Airbus and Boeing and the airlines that fly them on those routes.

Ground all triple 7s. And 767s. And 330s. They're nothing more than bloated 737s and 320s.

Stop the mass hysteria.

WHO the heck are YOU? Richard Branson?... "4 for the Long Haul"


User currently offlineTribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19469 times:



Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 4):
Wow, I may just have to head out to YYZ tomorrow for hte first time in a long time.

Anyone know where she is parked?

Not sure if she's been towed anywhere, but when I left (around 1am) she was parked at A2!!

not your usual AA MD80 or 737, but nice too see, and overall glad things turned out all right

on a side note, this is the fifth or sixth AA 777 in YYZ (for various reasons)


User currently offlineRicardoFG From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19419 times:

Quoting Tribird1011 (Reply 12):
Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 4):
Wow, I may just have to head out to YYZ tomorrow for hte first time in a long time.

Anyone know where she is parked?

Just left YYZ - lookis like A1 or A2 can't tell...the bird is N784AN, nice to see a AA heavy in YYZ, although I wish under better circumstances...glad all is ok!
BRGDS

[Edited 2008-02-03 00:18:25]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19399 times:



Quoting PU752 (Reply 5):
Im not really sure if they'd have continued if suffered an engine failure, they probably will land at nearest airport available

Absolutely. No room for debate.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
On 2 engine aircraft, engine failures are handled completely different than 3/4 engine aircraft. On a 2 engine aircraft, the crew must divert to the nearest (in terms of time) airport, while on a 3/4 engine aircraft may continue on to it's destination as long as certain things have been considered. However, any aircraft, when there is a possibility of fire will land ASAP at the nearest suitable airport.

Yep. No matter how much the would want to finish the flight, they are not allowed. I had this experience on a DL JFK-LAX. We landed in LAS even though the pilot said he would prefer to fly on to LAX as there are plenty of emergency landing sites along the path should things turn south, the rules say that engine out means nearest en route diversion point, no exceptions...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDeC From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18252 times:

"Airline bullshit" eh?

The same airline bullshit that brought down http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0 then?



DEC
User currently offlineNyskymasters From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18162 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Yep. No matter how much the would want to finish the flight, they are not allowed. I had this experience on a DL JFK-LAX. We landed in LAS even though the pilot said he would prefer to fly on to LAX as there are plenty of emergency landing sites along the path should things turn south, the rules say that engine out means nearest en route diversion point, no exceptions...

Actually, this is true for US registered aircraft and probably for many other countries.

However, the UK authority allows the B-747 to continue on three engines since the aircraft was certified as such. If you remember correctly the FAA wanted to bust the BA crew for violating an FAR with regard to continuing. But member states of ICAO allow each state, the UK in this case, to use their rules even when operating in another stated, the US in this case. This is why my airline is allowed to conduct flight operations using our Operation Specifications in many different countries around the world even though they might not meet the "rule of the land" to the letter. Therefore, if DL lost an engine on a 757 enroute to LAX they would have to land at LAS (or nearest airport in point of time) while an BA 747 could continue on.

As far as the BA incident the FAA tried unsuccessfully to violate the crew and the case was eventually dropped. Wasn't this discussed here before?


User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3451 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17935 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 10):
but most of the later T7 problems have been AF with engine shut downs (up to 2 now?)
(the BA T7 ran out of fuel didn't it?) and this was a "burning smell"

AFAIK, the board there has determined there was adequate fuel onboard. I am not sure I know where you got this from.



hit it and quit it
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17819 times:

Sounds like the piilot's PA announcement may have been a response to an ATC query that was inadvertantly broadcast via the PA, vice the radio. I've noticed this on numerous occasions while tuned to Ch9 on UA. Then again, given the sense of urgency in the cockpit, perhaps the crew was too consumed with the issue at hand to give a thorough description of the events. I'd freak if I was a pax that heard that, but I'd rather have them focus on the problem and getting the a/c down safely than providing me with a soliloquy that details the a/c's ills.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
An AA 757 en route from SJU to PHL also made an emergency landing at PBI on Wednesday due to smoke in the cockpit.

This has already been addressed in a separate thread earlier this week.

Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 7):
First off, What the crew did on the BA flight was wrong, and against regulations



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
Not to hijack the thread, but can you site the specific FAR that was violated?

Damn, PhilSquares, you beat me to it! Like you, I'm still waiting for CB Photo's answer!

Quoting Babybus (Reply 9):
Not being a scaremonger but maybe it is time to ground the 777 fleet for a full and complete investigation. Maybe those giant engines on those wings and the heavy body are taking its toll after all these years.

Based on the "giant engines" rationale, the A380 will start experiencing similar problems in a couple of years. In fact, the "problems" will probably be worse since there are four "giant engines" on the A380!

Seriously, though...there have been a lot of 777-related issues lately but, IIRC, the AF and possibly the BA mishaps involved the powerplant...this one appears to be electrical but again, it's too early to rush to judgment. If there were some serious design flaw, rest assured Boeing and the NTSB would've already grounded the 777 (ala the 737 with it's rudder issues in the 90s). It's also worth pointing out that AA voluntarily grounded their A300s while the tailplane issue was tended to last year (IIRC?).


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1288 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17628 times:



Quoting CBPhoto (Reply 7):
First off, What the crew did on the BA flight was wrong, and against regulations. Any professional crew would land the aircraft as soon as practical, and most definately would have notjust continued to ORD!

If the circumstances had been different, say an American operator of a four engined aircraft, would your opinion be different? Mmmm!


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17354 times:



Quoting Nyskymasters (Reply 16):
However, the UK authority allows the B-747 to continue on three engines since the aircraft was certified as such. If you remember correctly the FAA wanted to bust the BA crew for violating an FAR with regard to continuing.

It is also okay for US part 121 carriers ... FAR 121.565(b). If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the next suitable airport:

1. Nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
2. Altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
3. Weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
4. Air traffic congestion.
5. Terrain.
6. Familiarity with the airport to be used.

And the FAA did not try "bust the BA crew for violating an FAR with regard to continuing", they tried to say they were flying an unairworthy aircraft, it was an indirect way trying of get them as they did not break any rules with what they did.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGoAllegheny From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16510 times:



Quoting 777fan (Reply 18):
rest assured Boeing and the NTSB would've already grounded the 777 (ala the 737 with it's rudder issues in the 90s).

When did Boeing ever agree to ground the 737 fleet? IIRC, Boeing denied that there was a design flaw in the rudder servo for several years.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15944 times:



Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
so at least I'm on a friend's couch smoking fags

Just curious, but what perhaps does that mean in Brtain?  Silly


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7934 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15826 times:



Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 2):
If they has some kind of warning after leaving LHR. Why did they wait until YYZ to land?

I know. In fact when the IFE went down, it seemed hurried at the time, IFE always crashes when I'm on the plane but it's usually after it glitches for a while and you hear disgruntled people around you cursing cos they want to see how Live Free Or Die Hard ends (like it matters). On AA87, it was working perfectly, then there was an annoucement like, "We're having a problem with the in flight entertainment" and click it went off. Turned out (can't remember if I said this in the opening post) there had been a burning smell back then too.

Quoting Tribird1011 (Reply 12):
Not sure if she's been towed anywhere, but when I left (around 1am) she was parked at A2!!



Quoting RicardoFG (Reply 13):
Just left YYZ - lookis like A1 or A2 can't tell...the bird is N784AN, nice to see a AA heavy in YYZ

I must admit, it did occur to me that a 777 at a domestic gate would be a bonus for Toronto's a.netters. I guess the plane is still there. Maybe they'll ferry it today to ORD empty.

Quoting DeC (Reply 15):
"Airline bullshit" eh?

No disrespect to AA, they handled it all very well, it's just the airline system in general has no slack built in so when things don't go to plan, every step takes hours eg find busses to move a 777 planeload from one side of the airfield (domestic gate) to an international gate, arrange with customs to process the pax, find a 777 loader in a foreign country to get the bags off, tonnes of air cargo and mail to reroute, find 300 hotel rooms, rebook 300 flights etc. The station manager (Pierre?) did a great job of talking to the pax during the three hours we were on the plane at the gate, and the two or three hours afterwards when everyone was standing at a baggage carousel, he came round and talked to everyone in groups to tell us what was happening. I had a great time and got to spend a night with friends in Toronto (I'm still here, having a nice Sunday lunch later then flying to ORD at 4pm) but I'm sure it was a major pain in the arse for everyone else.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 18):
Sounds like the piilot's PA announcement may have been a response to an ATC query that was inadvertantly broadcast via the PA, vice the radio.

No, there was no call sign, he just sounded harrassed and busy!

Quoting 777fan (Reply 18):
I'd freak if I was a pax that heard that, but I'd rather have them focus on the problem and getting the a/c down safely than providing me with a soliloquy that details the a/c's ills.

Quite right, and "suspected electrical fire" would not have made me feel better!



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15594 times:



Quoting GoAllegheny (Reply 21):
When did Boeing ever agree to ground the 737 fleet?

Grounding, no (you're correct). FAA-mandated emergency inspections in November 1996, yes:
(fair use excerpt): "The FAA quickly issued an emergency order mandating the tests within the next 10 days."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/response/limiter.html

The point I was trying to make (albeit flubbed up) was that if either Boeing, the FAA/NTSB or the 777 operators thought there was a serious design flaw, etc., they'd have taken aggressive actions to find the source of the suspected problem.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
25 Jasondn : Exactly the same thing happened to me on a EK B777-300ER 30 minutes out of DXB in November last year! Also the burning smell, etc!
26 777fan : I'm just guessing but, there's probably some sort of unwritten rule about a flight crew actually identifying a fire as the source of a problem! I don
27 KYNG2KPBI : Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter): so at least I'm on a friend's couch smoking fags Just curious, but what perhaps does that mean in Brtain? Silly I t
28 Post contains images Gearup : Yep, the word in question does mean cigarettes and it meant that long before any other meaning. I wondered if someone would bring it up If anyone on
29 Ikramerica : I'm talking about twins, which this plane is. AA only flies twins. DL only flies twins. 747s aren't relevant to a discussion about diverting a 777.
30 Caspritz78 : From what I know is that LH allows to operate a 747 with just three engines and continuing to the final destination.
31 474218 : Flight crews are paid to fly airplanes and cabin crews are paid to provide safety and services to the passengers. Neither the flight or cabin craw ar
32 Post contains images Cbphoto : Yeah...sorry slept in today Woah....wait a second, where did I state he broke a FAR? I never said that, so dont miss-quote me. I specifically said ag
33 Nyskymasters : I was referring to a two-engine aircraft which what was being discussed. Yes, rules change for three or more engines. I am fully aware as to what the
34 Cubsrule : I think there's a fair bit of fearmongering going on in this thread, especially with respect to the 777 family. I would guess that, somewhere in the w
35 Flyorski : Well I am glad that everyone made it down okay. It seems weird that the T7 is having so many issues in the past few weeks. I hope the get to the botto
36 Post contains images AirRyan : Always on the lookout for intercultural slang! Bloody spell checking police!
37 Post contains images Ikramerica : Has anyone even found out what was wrong with the plane? If it was an IFE problem that created a burning smell, not smart to ignore that considering t
38 AAR90 : Post flight troubleshooting found no problems with the IFE system. My guess is that it was turned off as a precaution --it had previous write-ups on
39 Aviateur : Just for the record: This title of this thread contains the words "emergency landing." Remember that an emergency is a specific and formal declaration
40 Cbphoto : Precisouly, Thank you!!
41 Boysteve : This is the second post I have read from you suggesting the entire B777 feet should be grounded. After the first one your ass took one hell of a kick
42 YULWinterSkies : No way. Just no way. ETOPS or not. An airport is closeby and you land your injured plane immediately, no matters how close you are to your final dest
43 DeltaL1011man : sorry after i found out all were ok i didn't read the 7 other threads
44 PhilSquares : If you note, you wrote "against regulations". Against company procedures would be another issue. Your inference was the crew broke a FAR, they didn't
45 CBPhoto : Seeing as though the reply by me would take this thread WAY off of topic, I will PM you and we can get on the same page there!
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...
AA Makes Emergency Landing In Abilene posted Fri Dec 16 2005 16:16:24 by Sleekjet
AA Flight Makes Emergency Landing In Kingston posted Thu Jan 2 2003 18:11:58 by ScottysAir
PIA Plane Makes Emergency Landing In Karachi posted Tue Apr 17 2007 20:45:27 by Bilalaman
Swedish Charter Makes Emergency Landing In Moscow posted Fri Mar 9 2007 08:36:49 by Robbie86
Skywest Flight Makes Emergency Landing In MSO posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:20:44 by Montanaflyer
Piedmont Dash - 8 Makes Emergency Landing In CHO posted Thu Jan 18 2007 22:42:22 by ROA757
UA Makes Emergency Landing In Denver posted Thu Nov 30 2006 06:43:01 by FL370
Qatar Plane Makes Emergency Landing In New Delhi posted Wed Apr 5 2006 21:17:28 by Schipholjfk
United Jet Makes Emergency Landing In Pueblo posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:42:56 by BNAflyer78
Air India Plane Makes Emergency Landing In Romania posted Thu Jun 2 2005 20:46:25 by Egghead
Swedish Charter Makes Emergency Landing In Moscow posted Fri Mar 9 2007 08:36:49 by Robbie86
Skywest Flight Makes Emergency Landing In MSO posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:20:44 by Montanaflyer
Piedmont Dash - 8 Makes Emergency Landing In CHO posted Thu Jan 18 2007 22:42:22 by ROA757
UA Makes Emergency Landing In Denver posted Thu Nov 30 2006 06:43:01 by FL370
Qatar Plane Makes Emergency Landing In New Delhi posted Wed Apr 5 2006 21:17:28 by Schipholjfk
United Jet Makes Emergency Landing In Pueblo posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:42:56 by BNAflyer78
PIA Plane Makes Emergency Landing In Karachi posted Tue Apr 17 2007 20:45:27 by Bilalaman
Swedish Charter Makes Emergency Landing In Moscow posted Fri Mar 9 2007 08:36:49 by Robbie86
Skywest Flight Makes Emergency Landing In MSO posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:20:44 by Montanaflyer
Piedmont Dash - 8 Makes Emergency Landing In CHO posted Thu Jan 18 2007 22:42:22 by ROA757
UA Makes Emergency Landing In Denver posted Thu Nov 30 2006 06:43:01 by FL370
Qatar Plane Makes Emergency Landing In New Delhi posted Wed Apr 5 2006 21:17:28 by Schipholjfk
United Jet Makes Emergency Landing In Pueblo posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:42:56 by BNAflyer78