Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet  
User currently offlineLax2000 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

A United Airlines jet (767) bound for Los Angeles made an emergency landing Sunday afternoon in Kailua-Kona after malfunctions in both of its engines.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, United flt. 42 had taken off from Kahului, Maui, when it reported the malfunctions at an altitude of 27,000 feet.

The plane was able to turn around and safely land in Kailua-Kona at about 3:30 p.m. The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the incident.

Anyone have more info on this incident??

Thanks,

Adam




49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Wow, scary stuff. I'm assuming on of the engines was still somewhat operable or else we'd probably be hearing about a crash instead of an emergency landing.

User currently offlineKLM747 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 669 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Oh my, both engines! Good thing that they didn't completely go out.

KLM747 Big grin


User currently offlineDispatcher From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 253 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Wow, I just jumpseated on that flight on March 3rd. Never did like only 2 engines over water.

User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

I think twins are as safe as tri's and quads because of the ETOPS rules that don't apply to 3's and 4's. So ETOPS engines are more reliable.

But I think there are two more reasons..

1. A 3 or 4 engine plane has more of a chance of an engine explosion, that will bring the plane down. (OK, planes are designed to survive this problem, But it did bring the UAL DC-10 down ~ 10 years ago. Also if you have seen US654, the 767 that blew an engine on the ground in September, that plane would not be alive if it were in the air when it happend. Also the Delta MD-80 that had an explosion on the runway ~ 5 years ago. If that plane were airborn, I think it would have been more fatalitites.

2. ETOPS a/c by regulation have better fire fighting equipment in the cargo holds..

Just an opinion.


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

wrong ETOPS engines are the same engines that go on any other aircraft. what do you think, they make the engines any different. as far as fire fighting capabilities they are all the same regardless of engine configuration. where do you guys get this bogus info or do you just make it up


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Shit happens...luckily this did not happen when it was hours away from land. I can tell you that ETOPS was not the problem in this incedent.

User currently offlineOH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

Hm... I heard that this was a San Francisco-bound 763 flight from Honolulu... and that it made an emergency landing in Kailua-Kona.

Man... that plane was stocked with fuel as well to make the run to the West Coast... you wonder if it was able to dump any fuel before landing, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised if the landing gear buckled under all that weight, it had to have been way over it's Maximum Landing Weight.

Moi,
Kai



Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
User currently offline242 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Uhhmmm, Galaxy5, while engines on ETOPS aircraft are fundamentaly the same as non-ETOPS engines, the ETOPS designated engines are maintained to a higher standard.

Cargo fire suppresion systems are also more substantial on ETOPS birds. If you're 180 minutes away from a suitable airport, you'd better be damn sure any fire that erupts can be extinguished or suppressed for at least 195 minutes.


User currently offlineCdfMXTech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

What kind of engines dows United use on their B767s...

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

CdfMXTech,

UA uses the same PW4000s as they do on their 744s on the 767.


User currently offlineMit From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Why are fire supression systems more substantial on ETOPS planes? That makes no sense. Triples and Quads are allowed to go farther away from alternate airports ... 240 minutes, 300 minutes, etc. It seems ETOPS restrictions if anything would allow lower fire supression standards.

Continuing in the same vein, how does having more than 2 engines make an onboard fire less dangerous? That would be the view implicit in having higher fire supression standards for ETOPS a/c.

Can someone cite the FAR dealing with this issue and/or explain the reasoning behind it.


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

242 dude your so wrong its not even funny you dont know what the hell your talking about. the engines are all maintained the same where did ya hear that. the engines are all treated the same. also fire fighting equipment/systems are the same. i dont know where you heard any different but your wrong.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineCritter_592 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

What's ETOPS and will somebody give the difference between the regulars, and ETOPS.

User currently offlineBoeingrulz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 466 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2037 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ETOPS regulations require more stringent engine maintainance practices than non-ETOPS engines.

Boeing publishes separate ETOPS maintainance procedures for planes that fly in ETOPS service. Look at this AERO article for more info on ETOPS specific maintainance.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/etops.html

Carolyn


User currently offlineBoeingrulz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 466 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From Boeing Aero magazine Number 06

Fire suppression.
Current specifications for the fire-suppression system in each Class C compartment require a minimum initial concentration of 5 percent Halon throughout the compartment to suppress any combustion to controllable levels. Thereafter, the system must sustain a minimum concentration of 3 percent Halon for 60 min to prevent reignition or spreading of the combustion. For airplanes certified for extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS), the fire-suppression system must be able to sustain a 3 percent concentration of Halon within the compartment for a maximum of 180 min.

Emphasis added
Carolyn



User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2214 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

I always find it very funny when someone blasts someone else for being ignorant (and with such confidence) and all they manage to accomplish is show everyone how ignorant they are themselves. Sorry Galaxy 5. We all eat our own feet on this forum at some point.

One other difference I've heard of from the Malysian 777 engine failure incident is that ETOPS aircraft engines must be serviced by completely separate crews in order to avoid duplicate accidental errors during maintenance.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39703 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

Just put me on a quad!

When I flew SFO-HNL last summer, I made sure I was flying on a 747.
It was a 747-200 and I would take that over any 777 or 767 anyday!


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Rob Rindt




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

I heard that this could have been fuel contamination. I could not verify it, however.

DeltaSFO



It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

I find it funny that twice you rip someone up for a statment, yet provide no facts to back up your own assault and end up being completely wrong.

If you thought he was incorrect, say so, and provide facts, this board is all about discussions and sharing information. You were so completely sure he was wrong, you had to post TWICE to show the world how smart you were. I'm not flaming or preaching, but a board doesn't grow nor do people learn anything when someone carries out a childish rant as you did. I think it deserves and apology, but who am I to say.

Also, the 767 was able to restart both engines and land safely I read, i will see if I can dig up the source for ya...

cheers,
BlatantEcho



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineUAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Yeah...shit happens is right. The aircraft in question lost all power and the RAT deployed. It landed overweight and the brakes caught fire. Several things are being examined right now and I can't go into specifics. But for a few moments there was another Gimli Glider over the Pacific.

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

They weren't able to start the APU either? Thats really serious stuff if the RAT deploys. If they were at 27,000 ft, I'm assuming that is too far out to glide back...did they manage to restart one or both engines at all?

User currently offlineMit From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Thanks to Boeingrulz for posting the boeing info on ETOPS fire supression standards. Can anyone now explain why extra engines make a cargo fire safer?

I would hope that a fire onboard would be cause for a precautionary diversion for any airplane. I cannot imagine pax on a burning 747 in the middle of the Pacific saying, "I'm sure glad this plane has 4 engines, if it only had two then that fire under my seat would be much more troubling."

Why the higher standard for twins that stay closer to alternate airfields than the quads do?


User currently offlineKonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

The aircraft had taken off from Honolulu (well west of the Big Island), and was far enough & high enough from Kailua-Kona, to be able to glide in if the engines couldn't be restarted.

User currently offlineUAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

A sucessful restart of both engines was accomplished.

25 Ambasaid : Galaxy5, I just love it when people get on their high horses to correct other people, especially when they are WRONG. Its plain to see that you have n
26 L-1011-500 : Statistically, the more engines you have, the higher the risk of not all working correctly is higher. It is true. L-1011-500
27 R347216 : Were these engines Pratt & Whitney?
28 Hkgspotter1 : I remember a case when a QF 767 was out of the water when a engine failed. The returned and fixed the problem. The plane departed again and this time
29 Post contains links and images L-1011-500 : There are many out there, and I do recognize that this section is primarily opinion based. But, please tell me, what livery is so BORING!!!! Click for
30 CPDC10-30 : L-1011-500 , thats the kind of thing to start a new topic for. I don't see how it is related.
31 Galaxy5 : there is nothing in your posts that states the engines are maintained to a higher standard. those exact same engines are maintained the exact same way
32 Cedarjet : Galaxy5, where do you get your info from?! FACT: ETOPS-certified aircraft have different maintenence standards, more frequent inspections, etc etc. Ar
33 FDXmech : I know it was said previous that ETOPS aircraft have a greater amount of fire suppression capability (duration of suppression) than non-ETOPS a/c and
34 Ambasaid : Galaxy5, You should have quit while you were ahead. As for those friends of yours, they really need to go back to school. FACT. The procedures involve
35 Iwantanl1011 : even if the engines were completely inoperable there is a good chance they would have made it from 27,000, if they weren't too far out. These planes g
36 Wingman : So in a case like this one, if the failures were due to fuel contamination, it wouldn't make a bit of difference if you had 4 engines or 16 engines ri
37 RIX : Of course, it would. For a twin to restart one engine would be enough while I'm afraid a quad with only one working engine still has a problem...
38 KonaB777 : It is a known fact that four engines are actually less reliable than two because there is twice as much to go wrong. With the reliability of today's e
39 B747 : I remember working a 757 one night and they said you have to check a plug that attracts metal particles, called a "chip detector". You have to check t
40 Galaxy5 : AMBASAID. yours fact are nicely stated , however you still havent gotten the point, the engines that go on ETOPS are still the very same engines that
41 Post contains images ILUV767 : Aircraft Update: The aircraft in question, flew back to the mainland yesterday without skipping a beat. All is well. Currently, it is in SFO, and goin
42 Ambasaid : Good Morning Galaxy5, I totally agree with you that they are the same engines, manufactured the same way and are built to the same specifications. See
43 CX flyboy : I think the chances of a double engine failure on a 4-engined plane may be higher than a double failure on an ETOPS plane, but look at the consequence
44 Post contains links AKelley728 : Galaxy5: The FAA clearly states that maintenance procedures on an ETOPS plane are different from procedures for normal two-engined aircraft. The circu
45 Post contains images Jet-A gasguy : HOLY SMOKES! That was the flight I fueled! UAL Flight 42 out of OGG(Maui, Hawaii) Dog gone it! I knew I should have sumped that re-fueler truck in the
46 Beech_bum : Late post, but after reading them all I noticed nobody mentioned that the big thing with ETOPS is that the aircraft can have an engine failure/fire in
47 ILUV767 : Beech_bum, I agree with you. ETOPS planes are fine. They go through very very strict standards to be safe to fly over water for long periods. But, wha
48 Post contains links OPNLguy : FWIW... http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_maint.jsp?view=story&id=news/rual7670308.xml
49 RIX : A double engine failure on a twin WILL happen. It is just a matter of time. - that's not correct. It MAY happen, but may NEVER happen. Even if you pla
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...
Any More News On The United Jet With A Burning Jet posted Thu Mar 22 2001 22:31:16 by Mr. 717
Passengers Subdue Man On Cincinnati-Bound Flight posted Sat Mar 11 2006 04:31:39 by Skibum9
Airbus & Russia In Talks On $25 Billion New Jet posted Tue Feb 21 2006 18:14:09 by Keesje
WSJ Article On 13% Of US Jet Fuel Production Down posted Thu Sep 1 2005 20:04:15 by Lightsaber
United Jet Makes Emergency Landing In Pueblo posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:42:56 by BNAflyer78
Boeing Says In Talks On 600 Possible 787 Jet Sale posted Wed Apr 6 2005 04:54:45 by BoeingBus
Matches Banned On US Bound Flights posted Thu Feb 17 2005 06:51:46 by 777ER
Any Info On The Oakley Corporate Jet: N701WH posted Sat Feb 5 2005 18:32:55 by CaptainTim
Does AvCraft Plan On Producing The 428 Jet? posted Sat Jul 3 2004 19:00:20 by Cumulonimbus
Does VS Offer PJ's On East Bound Day Flights? posted Sat May 22 2004 20:06:27 by Zrs70