Lax2000 From United States, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1475 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.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4662 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1055 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.
Gregg From United States, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 948 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..
Galaxy5 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 37 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 935 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
OH-LGA From United States, joined Oct 1999, 1347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 884 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.
242 From United States, joined Oct 2000, 498 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 859 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.
Mit From United States, joined Dec 2000, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 783 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.
Galaxy5 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 37 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 751 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
Boeingrulz From United States, joined Sep 1999, 399 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 735 times:
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.
Boeingrulz From United States, joined Sep 1999, 399 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 710 times:
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.
Wingman From United States, joined May 1999, 1402 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 707 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.
BlatantEcho From United States, joined Sep 2000, 1678 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 678 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...
UAL Bagsmasher From United States, joined Sep 1999, 2076 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 641 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.
Life of CRJ-200 A&P= PRESENT: NO SDN...ERR CODE: 109...LRU: DOOR...INHIBIT*
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4662 posts, RR: 34 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 632 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?
Mit From United States, joined Dec 2000, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 623 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?
KonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 606 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.
UAL Bagsmasher From United States, joined Sep 1999, 2076 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 615 times:
A sucessful restart of both engines was accomplished.
Life of CRJ-200 A&P= PRESENT: NO SDN...ERR CODE: 109...LRU: DOOR...INHIBIT*
Ambasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 598 times:
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 no practical knowledge of ETOPS. Try checking out FAA AC120-42A.
Mit,
This probably sounds like a stupid answer but unfortunately its quite close to the mark. ETOP flights are operated under the above mentioned Advisory Circular, it imposes certain restrictions on aircraft and operators who want to operate ETOPS. One of these is the fire suppression.
At present there is no such regulation for tri or quads, therefore the manufacturers or airlines wont spend the money. There is talk in the industry of introducing EROPS, Extended Range Ops, which would apply to all aircraft.
OH-LGA,
Most commercial airliners can land at their Maximum Takeoff Weight, the gear wont buckle.
Wingman,
Correct, ETOPS maintenance program will include maintenance procedures that will control identical maintenance action being performed to multiple similar systems (e.g. fuel control change on both engines). This is to ensure that human factor errors have not been introduced. Identical maintenance is defined as the same task (i.e., repair, replacement, or disassembly) being performed on more than one of similar system during the same maintenance visit. Engine-driven components are considered equivalent, consequently the replacement of such components in any combination on both engines is generally regarded as an identical maintenance action. Removal of both engine oil filters or both chip detectors, replacement of both IDG's, EDP's or replacement of #1 IDG and #2 EDP are examples of identical maintenance actions. Servicing of fluids and gases is not considered multiple maintenance action.
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
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 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 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 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 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
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
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 1999, 541 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4662 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 664 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
