MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38534 times:
A sunny weather forecast sounds scary in Daily Mail.
I highly doubt the plane just fell out of the sky. It seems like they had a reason to divert back to St. John's and you can't land if you don't descend.
So basically, according to this article, they "plunged 20,000 feet" because a passenger who watched the descent on the seat back screen saw them descending.
My disgust for the Daily Mail seems to have no limits.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38095 times:
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 1): A sunny weather forecast sounds scary in Daily Mail.
I highly doubt the plane just fell out of the sky. It seems like they had a reason to divert back to St. John's and you can't land if you don't descend.
So basically, according to this article, they "plunged 20,000 feet" because a passenger who watched the descent on the seat back screen saw them descending.
My disgust for the Daily Mail seems to have no limits.
I have to agree. The sidebar stories in the same article looks like TMZ and the National Enquirer run amok.
I'm sure we will find out what the real reason was, not the Daily Mail's version.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 37982 times:
Plunged this isn't. Accelerated decent to get back safely probably. That customers could feel the g's probably raised the eyebrows, but hardly as if it was so intense that it could rip the wings off.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8750 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 37526 times:
I wonder if daily mail would call an idle descent to 20,000 or 18,000 or 10,000ft plunging. It wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
20,000ft is a strange altitude to have a plunging descent to. If they lost both packs and pressurization, a 757 has about 4 minutes to get to 10,000ft without hitting the cabin altitude alarm. That’s a fast descent, but they wouldn’t stop at 20,000ft. If it was a single pack failure, they might go down to 20,000ft, but that would be an idle descent because there’s plenty of time not to run into the cabin altitude limit. An engine failure wouldn’t cause pilots to immediately want to lose altitude. Altitude is your friend and again it would be a slow descent to single engine operating altitude.
Or maybe the pilots decided that LHR is far too important of a market for a 757 to fly to from IAD, and they felt that Newfoundland was more appropriate for the 757, so they decided to go there instead.
[Edited 2012-07-16 10:14:41]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 37341 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): Or maybe the pilots decided that LHR is far too important of a market for a 757 to fly to from IAD, and they felt that Newfoundland was more appropriate for the 757, so they decided to go there instead.
I suspect that is really the case and that UA are going to open up a huge hub there. I am surprised this was not reported in the Daily Mail
MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 37296 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): 20,000ft is a strange altitude to have a plunging descent to.
It is, which is why it seems like they were just descending to land. But that being said, it's very possible they did continue down to 10,000. The only sources in the article are from confused passengers.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1836 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 37095 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): 20,000ft is a strange altitude to have a plunging descent to.
It is, but they stated that they started at FL400, which seems rather high. Since the information was only observed by passengers on their seatback maps, it may not have been recorded accurately. They may well have gotten down to 10,000 ft because of a depressurization warning and turned back to North America.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 37051 times:
Descending to 20,000 ft (however they did it, plunging or not) gets you out of the air traffic main altitudes and gives you time to dump fuel and plan your re-route with out affecting the other commercial mainline traffice routes.
We (KC-135's) would drop down there (or near 20K) for our operations just for being away from the rest of the air traffic.
YVRtoYYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 35514 times:
From the CADORS:
UAL130, Boeing 757-200 was enroute from Washington (KIAD) to London (EGLL), routing 49N040W at 03:04Z, at 39,000 ft., NAT Track V. At 03:24Z, the flight declared an emergency (engine out) and descended to 28,000 ft. The flight received clearance to St. John’s (CYYT) and landed safely at 05:15Z.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 35214 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): 20,000ft is a strange altitude to have a plunging descent to. If they lost both packs and pressurization, a 757 has about 4 minutes to get to 10,000ft without hitting the cabin altitude alarm. That’s a fast descent, but they wouldn’t stop at 20,000ft. If it was a single pack failure, they might go down to 20,000ft, but that would be an idle descent because there’s plenty of time not to run into the cabin altitude limit. An engine failure wouldn’t cause pilots to immediately want to lose altitude. Altitude is your friend and again it would be a slow descent to single engine operating altitude.
If they had an IFSD, wouldn't they drift down from FL 400 to about FL 200 or below?
MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 34709 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): If they had an IFSD, wouldn't they drift down from FL 400 to about FL 200 or below?
I believe the 757 can fly at around FL 270 to FL 250 with an engine out. But that information is surprisingly difficult to find online. I'm sure someone here as a more accurate answer to that. I'm sure that's all it was, drifting down.
Joeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 873 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 34348 times:
It was only about 500 miles east of St John's when it turned around....maybe even less. In addition, it looks like in the first 7 minutes of the problem, it only lost 240 ft of altitude.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8750 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 34256 times:
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 14):
I believe the 757 can fly at around FL 270 to FL 250 with an engine out. But that information is surprisingly difficult to find online. I'm sure someone here as a more accurate answer to that. I'm sure that's all it was, drifting down.
It really depends on weight. Single engine cruise is in the 20s on a 757.
Also, drifting down is a recommended way to manage the one engine. It should be a controlled descent to a sustainable altitude. It should not be an emergency descent.
[Edited 2012-07-16 12:00:33]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 33682 times:
Quoting Joeljack (Reply 15): In addition, it looks like in the first 7 minutes of the problem, it only lost 240 ft of altitude.
There's a lot of Flightaware estimating going on just as they begin their descent. So that might not be entirely accurate.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16): Also, drifting down is not a recommended way to manage the one engine. It should be a controlled descent to a sustainable altitude.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "drifting down" more of the just the term that's used? As far as I understand it, descending after an engine failure involves consulting a chart for best speed and maintaining that speed to control your descent to the desired altitude. Weren't/aren't they even called drift down charts? I'm getting this information mostly from various other people I've talked to so don't beat me up if I'm not even close.
sshank From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 288 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33692 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7): Or maybe the pilots decided that LHR is far too important of a market for a 757 to fly to from IAD, and they felt that Newfoundland was more appropriate for the 757, so they decided to go there instead.
I am with the pilots on this one. I think LHR should only be served by widebodies
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8750 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33425 times:
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 19):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "drifting down" more of the just the term that's used? As far as I understand it, descending after an engine failure involves consulting a chart for best speed and maintaining that speed to control your descent to the desired altitude. Weren't/aren't they even called drift down charts? I'm getting this information mostly from various other people I've talked to so don't beat me up if I'm not even close.
Yes that is exactly what I was referring to. That's certainly not plunging or dropping like the article implied. It's requesting a lower altitude and then descending to it. I didn't indicate that very clearly (so I edited the post).
Based on altitude and cruise mach number, there is a maximum EPR for single engine operation. There is a chart that gives descent speed based on weight and gives the level off altitudes. The engine inop data tables provide the altitude that the airplane should be leveled off at. For a 757, it's in the 20s for the most part, but a fully loaded 757 on a hot day is limited to about 18,000ft on single engine operation.
[Edited 2012-07-16 12:01:01]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
NorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1713 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33432 times:
One of the calls I got at work last night was from a passenger on UA 130 right after they had diverted. She mentioned that they had diverted due to engine trouble so the idea of an inflight engine shut down makes sense. I didnt get any more details than that, we were more consumed with trying to find a way to get the passenger from Newark, where she said they were sending them back to, to her final destination.
Also interesting that in the GDS flight information screen, UA listed the cause of the diversion as being weather related at first. It was happenstance that there were thunderstorms in the NY area last night, which led me to wonder at first if the diversion was turbulence related. Later on, once the flight had been canceled, UA did add information that the cancelation was due to a mechanical. The only reason I knew that the diversion wasn't weather related was from talking to one of the passengers. Kudos to AC for taking care of UA's passengers at 3 in the morning, even offering breakfast vouchers. Equal "kudos" to UA for trying to dodge responsibility by calling weather on the diversion, which puts the reaccomodation under rule 260, the weather rule, vs rule 240.
I could have elite status if I wanted it, but flying the same airline all the time is boring.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4024 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33318 times:
The article states there were 50 passengers and 9 crewmembers. IF this can be trusted - yeah I know, a big "if" - it seems very light, no? Nine crewmembers? Were some deadheading?
aztrainer From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 401 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32849 times:
Quoting richierich (Reply 25): The article states there were 50 passengers and 9 crewmembers. IF this can be trustedy - yeah I know, a big "if" - it seems very light, no? Nine crewmembers? Were some deadheading?
I was thinking the same thing.
When I read the article about the 20,000 ft plunge and read about the crew running around all I could think of was, "How could they run if they were "plunging" due to zero gravity.....
AussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 31140 times:
The Daily Mail also reported that the flight was halfway across the Atlantic. I looked on Flight Aware, and it appears that this flight turned back to St. John's when it was about 300 miles east of Newfoundland - hardly halfway across the Atlantic! Typical of the Daily Mail!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 31038 times:
Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 21): Equal "kudos" to UA for trying to dodge responsibility by calling weather on the diversion, which puts the reaccomodation under rule 260, the weather rule, vs rule 240.
I almost feel like that's standard procedure. I once had an AA flight from JFK to SFO canceled because of "weather." Curious weather that makes a bunch of guys open the engine cowling and stand around scratching their heads.
usxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 832 posts, RR: 6 Reply 28, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 30966 times:
I just looked at today's seat map and I'm surprised its not packed to the gills. Only 3 F seats of 16 taken.. holy moly.. I remember a time when every UA flt to London was packed.... what's happening?!
AA757200 From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 29955 times:
Interesting note:
'The Boeing 757-200 carrying 50 passengers and 9 crew members landed safely and without incident.
TC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 29400 times:
what's happening?!
Maybe people are cancelling because they know of the awful summer weather we are having in the UK this year ! That and huge immigration queues, sky-high hotel costs in & around London because of the Olympics and the highest rate of Air Passenger Duty taxes anywhere would have me looking elsewhere for my vacation as well.
greenwichsud From United States of America, joined May 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28620 times:
Quoting usxguy (Reply 28): I remember a time when every UA flt to London was packed.... what's happening?!
it's unfortunate, and a bit surprising at first glance, that UA cannot fill a 757 from an east coast fortress hub to LHR in high season (even with the Olympics ongoing). upon second glance:
Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 21): Equal "kudos" to UA for trying to dodge responsibility by calling weather on the diversion, which puts the reaccomodation under rule 260, the weather rule, vs rule 240.
it becomes very clear why they are unable to do so
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 33, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28136 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): If they had an IFSD, wouldn't they drift down from FL 400 to about FL 200 or below?
If you're on the NAT tracks, a driftdown might interfere with other aircraft, especially if you're going to reverse course. Better to get down below them quickly and then proceed to your diversion airport. The lack of radar coverage means there are more requirements for separation that need to be maintained.
Quoting bohica (Reply 24): Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):
And United needs another reason for NOT flying 757's to Europe . All 757 should be removed from the Atlantic.
An engine out situation can happen on ANY airplane.
Same thing would have happened on a 767, 330 or 777.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
ContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 34, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28175 times:
Quoting sshank (Reply 19): I am with the pilots on this one. I think LHR should only be served by widebodies
I'd take a 757-200 with only 50 passengers on it any day over a stuffed widebody. 50 passengers means I probably get an entire row to myself. That could be the most comfortable transatlantic flight I'd ever take if I can't sit in first.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
Tbone354 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 73 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 27572 times:
Right you are. An engine out can happen in any plane. It happened to me in a Beechcraft Sundowner just after takeoff. Problem was, the Sundowner only has one engine! Also, one must understand the media. Their job is to exaggerate, sensationalize, and build whatever mountain out of the molehill story they are given. It is no longer about the news. It is more about the story. Beam me up.
eljonno From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27396 times:
I'm just hugely disappointed that two graduates from my alma mater university thought it would be okay to give interviews to the Daily Mail. Educated people (especially those educated at Exeter...) should know better than that and I might well consider sending an email to registry services to get their degrees revoked!
Another thing I always find strange when these 'terrifying' situations are reported is that the passengers who get interviewed are always convinced that not being told what is happening immediately somehow equates to the crew being reduced to a state of incompetent panic.
The flight got back to Newfoundland safely and I have no doubt whatsoever that the crew concerned on this flight did everything exactly as they should, ergo none of the passengers were in any danger; and their only discomfort came from being misinformed by their misconceptions about what should have been happening around them in an emergency situation.
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 38, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 24820 times:
freakyrat From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 538 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 24933 times:
I was a passenger on United Flight 58 a Boeing 767-400 on June 27th from IAH-AMS when the Captain announced that we would be diverting to Newark because he had lost his PFD (Primary Flight Display) and couldn't get it restarted. We were also heavy and dumped fuel over North Carolina and southern Virginia and also we were diverted around the Washington DC Special Flight Rules Area descending through 13,000 feet. It was controlled and orderly and we landed at Newark had the display replaced and took off two hours later for an uneventful flight across the Atlantic.
In the case above with the B757 a trained crew made the proper decision just like our crew did and it was controlled descent into Newfoundland.
O'h incidentally Our plane to AMS was completely full.
DLMD90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 24808 times:
Quoting usxguy (Reply 28): I just looked at today's seat map and I'm surprised its not packed to the gills. Only 3 F seats of 16 taken.. holy moly.. I remember a time when every UA flt to London was packed.... what's happening?!
tonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1874 posts, RR: 10 Reply 42, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 23167 times:
This sounds like the typical Daily Mail attempting to make headlines where there are none. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this article describes sounds to me like the standard procedure for loosing an engine i.e. a rapid descent to a lower altitude where the air is denser and then divert to your alternate airport? The sooner the Daily Mail succombs to the slump in the newspaper market the better.
Next Flights CX178 MEL-HKG; CX257 HKG-LHR; EI387 LHR-SNN
RP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 829 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 23091 times:
FYI, there was more to this incredibly dramatic "20000 ft drop" than what was reported. According to un-named sources, the plane also tilted a few times to the left and to the right while it was enroute to the airport.
tonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1874 posts, RR: 10 Reply 44, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 22566 times:
Quoting RP TPA (Reply 43): FYI, there was more to this incredibly dramatic "20000 ft drop" than what was reported. According to un-named sources, the plane also tilted a few times to the left and to the right while it was enroute to the airport.
Not to mention all these things that started popping out of the wings and out of the belly of the plane on final approach, sometimes making grinding noises in the process and after they parked at the gate, a big gaping hole appeared in the fuselage and luggage started falling out.
Next Flights CX178 MEL-HKG; CX257 HKG-LHR; EI387 LHR-SNN
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 22505 times:
Funny, the AV herald report stated that it was a mechanical issue and the pilots shut down the engine as a precaution.
Of course, the DM gives the impression that the engine malfunctioned, emergency decent and the pilots made a miraculous recovery after a 20,000 foot free fall. Good work by the writers at the DM, they got their story linked on A.net.
Just another example of why I loath today's reporters. (I refuse to call them journalist)
windowflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21878 times:
Quoting RP TPA (Reply 43): FYI, there was more to this incredibly dramatic "20000 ft drop" than what was reported. According to un-named sources, the plane also tilted a few times to the left and to the right while it was enroute to the airport.
I heard the wings started to separate and expand just before landing too.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3180 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21396 times:
Quoting flybry (Reply 17): The Daily Mail is the Jerry Springer of "news"
The Daily Mail is such a respectable periodical so that everything is the truth in that paper. The UFO and Big Foot stories must have been on the next page.
dirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21367 times:
The terrible post-merger integration and Smisek's awful awful leadership led to this!!!
anrec80 From Canada, joined Jan 2011, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16192 times:
BTW UA in addition to this 752, also sends a 772 and a 763 to LHR. Pretty adequate capacity and frequency IMHO. Nothing pathetic, capacity is similar to BA on that route (2x 772) and certainly more than VS (346).
skygirl1990 From New Zealand, joined Jun 2010, 115 posts, RR: 1 Reply 54, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16194 times:
My interest was piqued when I saw the title of the thread, and then as soon as I opened it and saw that it was a Daily Mail link... Not going to even bother opening the link now...
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 55, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15568 times:
Its like a force field. Glows and everything. Pretty darn cool if you ask me. Every now and then you'll see super man himself flying in the widebody types.
In the real world, Any airline that has ETOPS-120 or 180(or ETOPS period) doesn't have many IFSDs or they would lose ETOPS on the aircraft type.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4676 posts, RR: 17 Reply 56, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14726 times:
If I may ask, what are the most common causes of IFSD?
acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1855 posts, RR: 10 Reply 57, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14651 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
This thread is going in many different directions. Can the Daily Mail be dubious at times? Of course - that's why people read it, right? Is a load of 50 on a 757 (and 9 crew members) light? Sure it is - just think about all the extra meals and liquor you get to partake in. Is a 757 a small bird to go across the pond in? I dunno - Charles Lindbergh made it in something smaller. Is Jeff Smisek responsible for all this? Why not, he seems to be the whipping boy at UA for everything now, why not just pile it on (he may disagree though).
Regardless, I hate to spoil the fun but this thread is about UA 130 IAD-LHR diverting due to an IFSD. For the sake of clarity please stick to the subject. I don't really want to go through and delete posts because nothing stands out to me as flagrantly obscene but if everyone could stick to the original subject I would be greatly appreciative. Thanks!
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 60, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6479 times:
Quoting usxguy (Reply 28): I just looked at today's seat map and I'm surprised its not packed to the gills. Only 3 F seats of 16 taken.. holy moly.. I remember a time when every UA flt to London was packed.... what's happening?!
This is my question too. The news here reports the plane only had 50 passengers!!! At the height of the summer -- to LHR? What's that about?
That's enough space for every economy passenger to have his own row!
I don't care for narrowbodies for longer flights, but with that light load, the flight would have been very comfortable.
DBQ From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 51 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4904 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 11): Descending to 20,000 ft (however they did it, plunging or not) gets you out of the air traffic main altitudes and gives you time to dump fuel and plan your re-route with out affecting the other commercial mainline traffice routes.
frat From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1 Reply 64, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 60): This is my question too. The news here reports the plane only had 50 passengers!!! At the height of the summer -- to LHR? What's that about?
The problem with many flights to LHR these days is that due to the Olympics, the hotel prices in LHR went up to ridiculous levels and so many tourists stayed home, especially those not interested in sports.
Since BD is not in Star Alliance/A++ anymore, there are not that many feeder possibilities for connecting traffic beyond LHR. This traffic goes mainly via FRA, MUC, ZRH and other Star hubs.
goosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4543 times:
50 PAX is pretty amazing for a flight to LHR at present. LHR figures are up recently despite the lousy UK weather over the past few weeks. Is UA having difficulty matching BA on price or service?
EIDL From Ireland, joined Apr 2012, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4502 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 64): Yes, every aircraft flying has to be able to have fuel dump capabilites just for the purpose of emergency landings and situations like this.
A huge number of aircraft have no fuel dump capabilities. Its either burn it off in flight or make a heavy landing.
RobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 19 Reply 70, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4066 times:
Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 26): The Daily Mail also reported that the flight was halfway across the Atlantic. I looked on Flight Aware, and it appears that this flight turned back to St. John's when it was about 300 miles east of Newfoundland - hardly halfway across the Atlantic! Typical of the Daily Mail!
It was nearly half way across. See reply 12. It's around 20 mins between 10 degrees of longitude at that latitude so as it passed 40W at 0304z then declared the emergency at 0324z it would've been around 36-35W when it turned back.
You can't rely on flightaware anymore now as the majority of their position info is guessed ("flightaware approximate") and more often than not it is wildly inaccurate.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8750 posts, RR: 52 Reply 71, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3896 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 68): Quoting EIDL (Reply 67):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 64):
Yes, every aircraft flying has to be able to have fuel dump capabilites just for the purpose of emergency landings and situations like this.
A huge number of aircraft have no fuel dump capabilities. Its either burn it off in flight or make a heavy landing.
Umm... it's an FAA requirement for the US built aircraft.
The requirement is that any airplane is capable of landing at its MTOW safely (structural damage is allowed) or it must have the capability to dump fuel to get to an acceptable weight. The only narrowbody that Boeing produces that can dump fuel is the P-8A version of the 737. Fuel dump is an option on 767s and is not standard equipment.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 72, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3703 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 64): Yes, every aircraft flying has to be able to have fuel dump capabilites just for the purpose of emergency landings and situations like this.
Nope, guess again.
Quoting 135mech (Reply 68): Umm... it's an FAA requirement for the US built aircraft.
Nope.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 69): I guess somehow the 737 and 757 got a waver, since they are not able to dump fuel....
Quoting David L (Reply 71): Only on types where the maximum take-off weight is significantly higher than the maximum landing weight.
Bingo, thank you David L.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 75, posted (10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2571 times:
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 18): Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "drifting down" more of the just the term that's used? As far as I understand it, descending after an engine failure involves consulting a chart for best speed and maintaining that speed to control your descent to the desired altitude. Weren't/aren't they even called drift down charts? I'm getting this information mostly from various other people I've talked to so don't beat me up if I'm not even close.
A number of strategies exist, and what you use will depend on the situation. These strategies are a normal descent, this would possibly be the case here, ATC would want the aircraft to descend down below the RVSM levels as fast as possible to avoid traffic conflicts.
The other two are an ETOPS strategy which would be a MMo/Vmo descent (it is part of the ETOPS approval, part of the planning, but does not need to be flown), or the drift down, which is normally used for terrain clearance. The drift down which is normally done at the best L/D speed with thrust at MCT, this gives the lowest rate of descent.
Normally any sort of descent due to a loss of thrust will be accompanied with an offset from track to avoid traffic. There are standard contingency procedures promulgated for this.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 224 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 191 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6439 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 633 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, 
From UK - England, joined May 2012, 336 posts, 
Same thing would have happened on a 767, 330 or 777.
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 847 posts, 
Tintin Flight 714, anybody?
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1330 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
