Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Plane Makes 2nd Emergancy Landing  
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3434 times:

The same UA 747 that made the emergency landing
has again had to turn back to Auckland this time with
flap trouble.
Link here for story
http://www.newsdirectory.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.theage.com.au

Wirraway




24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3199 times:

Click the breaking news at the top left.

Wirraway


User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3167 times:

And if you can still not find it go here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51853&pagenumber=2


User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2175 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3145 times:

Wow, not good for UA :-(

Switch it with one of the ones in the desert  Wink/being sarcastic

BA777


User currently offlineFlyua From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

WOW! What an incredibly awful story! Thank goodness the airplane returned safely to Auckland.

Whoever made the decision to LIE to our customers about the airplane # should be sacked.

A friend of mine was one of the unlucky cabin crew onboard. I look forward to hearing the details, as United will undoubtably keep them quiet.


User currently offlineF.pier From Italy, joined Aug 2000, 1523 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Do you know the reg. number of that aircraft?

User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Would the problems with the flaps and pressurisation have anything to do with the plane having encountered severe turbulence? I am not aware of the sort of damage an aircraft can sustain in such a situation, but I assume it could be extensive.

Definitely not a good decision on UA's part to tell the passengers they were flying on a different aircraft. Nothing should have been said at all, rather than lying to them. I'm sure UA lost some credibility and trust from the point of view of its customers as a result of this incident and how they handled it.


User currently offlineWoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

As for UA telling pax that it was a different aircraft or keeping the tail # quiet so that people wouldnt know, I found this sort of practice to be common at the airline I worked for. As soon as there was an incident of any kind, no matter how minor (I worked in OPS so I had a pretty good handle on what was going on with flights at any given time I was on the job), the FLIFO (flight info in the company computer) was deleted and you couldnt find anything out about the incident. Furthermore, if you were quick enough to check the aircraft rotation schedule for that day before the company programmers got to it, you could get the tail # of the aircraft involved...wait too long and that information too was made unavailable. I found that my company was also very tight lipped about any maintenance delays and we were told not to tell any pax or anybody else anything about the nature of the delay, what the mechanical problem was or anything else. They would also try and make sure nobody knew the tail number of an aircraft involved in an incident until which time it was brought into MX or a few days later.

So, as an OPS agent, I would have had a hard time knowing if the plane parked at the gate was the one that "depressurized" a couple of days ago or had to make an emergency landing or whatever.....I dont think its very uncommon, unless my company was especially paranoid.


User currently offlineE7plnr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 103 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Who has the contract maintenance for United in Auckland? The severe turbulence inspection should have found any type of flight control problem. As for the pressurization problem, probably a fluke!

User currently offlineTrickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Yes this is terrible news and bad PR for United... I think maybe customer service in Auckland got a little too overconfident and went ahead and reassured the passnegers that they would be getting a new plane for the make-up flight. As mentioned, they should have just not said anything.

Woodsboy,
It's a shame that things like that go on in such a safety-conscious industry. But I guess we can't do much about those practices until something drastic happens and/or someone gets caught in the act of doing it.



Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
User currently offlineJaseWGTN From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

I think it's nice of UA to offer the australian/us passengers a free stopover in AKL enroute......

(Sorry - don't mean to be rude but it's early Sat morning!)


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Do you think that the midair turbulence the 744 hit on Wednesday could've cause some physical damage to it?

User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

All right, being the dim biscuit that I am, I'm dreadfully confused.

The incoherent front-page article on this morning's Herald didn't help.

UA862 SYD-SFO makes emergency landing at Auckland Wednesday night. Passengers and crew overnighted, some taken to Auckland Hospital.

This diverted flight rescheduled for Thursday night departure, 6.30pm.

Now - what's what? The way I read it, United staff told passengers the rescheduled diverted flight would be operated by a replacement 747. But it actually wasn't, right?

Then, on the taxiway, the pilot aborted saying that he heard strange noises.

So the flight left about two hours later at 7.59, on Thursday night, right? But on One News last night, a breaking report said that a UA jet was making an emergency landing at Auckland at about 6.30 Friday night.

But this morning's Herald said that this was the same group of passengers on Wednesday's flight?!!

So the questions:
Just how many UA 747s are there floating aimlessly around New Zealand and:
If the UA862 passengers left Thursday night, how come they made an emergency landing 24 hours later at Auckland? And if it was Friday night, how could they make an emergency landing before they started?

So a departure time of 7.59 for UA862 on any day is wrong, right?

Confounded newspapers! Can anyone clarify the muddy waters for me please?


User currently offlineAussie_ From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1766 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

I believe that there were three unsuccessful attempts to get to SFO for all the pax on the flight.

At one stage there were 3 UA 744s in AKL:
N180UA
N182UA
N106UA

* * *

"Melbourne Age" Breaking News
Third time unlucky as UA jet calls another emergency
AUCKLAND, May 3 AFP|Published: Friday May 3, 8:28 PM

A United Airlines Boeing 747 that was involved in a mid-air drama earlier this week was today forced to make an emergency landing here with malfunctioning flaps.

For many of the passengers it was a case of third time unlucky.

Late on Wednesday, the aircraft was flying from Sydney to San Francisco when it struck severe turbulence over Tonga, injuring seven people. It made an emergency landing in Auckland after suffering what one passenger described as "an earthquake in the air".


Many of the passengers on that flight were to have flown out today on the same aircraft, but later in the evening were again back in Auckland.

An American businessman said the plane had been in the air only 90 minutes out of Auckland in its third attempt to get to San Francisco, when the captain announced it was losing air pressure and would have to turn back.

The captain also announced the aircraft's flaps were possibly malfunctioning and emergency vehicles would be on the tarmac to greet the plane as it landed at Auckland.

The businessman, who did not want to be named because he was negotiating compensation with United Airlines, said the flight to San Francisco was rescheduled for 2:30pm yesterday (1230 AEST) but was delayed until 6:30pm (1630 AEST).

After passengers climbed aboard, they had to wait on the tarmac for four hours before that flight too was abandoned.

"The captain said they had a strange noise on the plane so we cleared customs for a second time and went back to the hotel," he said.

"Airline staff said 'oh this is unprecedented, it's terrible... we have a new plane for you' (for Friday's flight).

"But it wasn't, it was the same plane and the flight attendant acknowledged that."

Passengers returned to the airport this morning for their third attempt to get to San Francisco. Many were feeling relaxed as the plane successfully took off but things soon went wrong.

The captain said there was a serious mechanical problem, the plane was losing air pressure and needed to turn back to Auckland.

He said a related problem meant the flaps, which help the plane land, might not be operating and the plane needed to go to "secondary power".

While flight attendants moved to the exit rows, the captain told passengers not to be alarmed.

But the businessman said: "Everyone's pretty tense, my wife was freaking out. She was told initially it wasn't the same (plane) so she was upset it was.

"After we landed the captain said if we'd gone any further it would have been a big problem."

The passengers were at first incredulous, the businessman said, and half the passengers scheduled to reboard a United Airlines flight last night were refusing to get back on the plane.

He said it should not have been the same plane that was involved in the turbulence and the situation was "beyond a joke".

Many of the people on board the flight had evidence of their injuries from the Wednesday night flight, including neck braces.

By Michael Field



User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

What the hell are they doing ?. The airline is already in very bad shape and now they are doing this to the passengers !.

User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Item One That was really dumb of CS in AKL to make assumtions like that.

Rule #1 is don't assume it makes an ass of u and me. Rule #2 If you don't know say you don't know don't make anything up.

Item Two This may be a big deal to those who follow Aviation, and it is certainly a very big deal to those involved, ut here in the States this hasn't made any news what-so-ever.

HKGspotter don't go and get all riled up over this. Stupid decisions where made, I hope someone gets disiplined over them (if they are true) but this really isn't a public relations nightmare. AA has survived losing 2 widebodies in a month. Noone was killed and noone was hurt. I think you will find if we looked into this deeper that it was just a misunderstanding. At the very least nothing malicious was ment by it.

In other words lets be reasonable about this.


User currently offlineKaitakfan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

very well said UALPHLCS. To many people are jumping to conclusions over stuff that isnt clarified at all. No need to get all riled up as you said! I imagine there is alot more to the story then any of us really know. But what we do know is pretty unfortunate for everyone. Then again everyone is safe and on the ground! Thats what matters most!

User currently offlineSouthern From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2402 times:

Hey,

How reliable is this flight (overall)? I will be flying it in June and I need to be in SFO at the schedualed time. Should I change carrier?

Thanks for your help


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2367 times:

I beleive this doesn't happen oftenly. You can stick with UA! Overall the B747-400 is reliable.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

I noted the posts explaining how this info is sometimes purged from computers, but has someone identified the ship involved? One post noted N180UA, N182UA and N106UA on the ground AKL.

User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

What the hell are they doing ?. The airline is already in very bad shape and now they are doing this to the passengers !.

because I'm sure they did it on puropse....you people need help.

--dragogoalie-#88--




Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
User currently offlineTrickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Southern,

I wouldn't change carriers. United is one of the safest airlines in the world. The pilot used good judgement by postponing the duration of the flight and diverting to Auckland. It's the ground people who are getting the heat right now for promising passengers something they can't pull off.



Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
User currently offlineKaitakfan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Southern,

Thats silly to consider switching airlines just because of what happend to this certain flight. I have flown that route 6 times now, doing it again in a week and a half as well, not once have I ever had a problem with clear air turbulence or diversions what so ever.


User currently offlineSouthern From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2161 times:

Thanks for your help! just clarifying things cause Ive never flown united before  Smile  Smile

User currently offlineDinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1063 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

Hey Southern, What dates are you going to be flying that route, I will most likely be on the 863 SFO to Melbourne on June 6th and on 862 Melbourne to SFO on June 26th. If you are going to be on the same ones it would be great to meet somebody from a.net.

Dinker



Two rules in aviation, don't hit anything and don't run out of gas, cause if you run out of gas yer gonna hit something.
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...
Small Plane Makes Partial Gear Landing! (video) posted Sun Oct 23 2005 06:20:27 by Alberchico
Small Plane Makes Emergency Landing On Autobahn posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:44:14 by DutchFlyer
Qatar Plane Makes Emergency Landing In New Delhi posted Wed Apr 5 2006 21:17:28 by Schipholjfk
NW Airlink Plane Makes Emergency Landing At BDL posted Mon Oct 10 2005 03:01:16 by FlyTweed
Air India Plane Makes Emergency Landing In Romania posted Thu Jun 2 2005 20:46:25 by Egghead
HV Plane Makes Precautionary Landing! posted Sat Oct 23 2004 23:03:41 by FJWH
Hajj Plane Makes Emergency Landing Indonesia posted Wed Jan 14 2004 01:33:11 by Jourdan747
Southwest Plane Makes Emergency Landing @ SNA posted Fri Aug 15 2003 23:02:54 by Matt D
All Nippon Passenger Plane Makes Emergency Landing posted Sun Jun 1 2003 06:35:05 by Flyingbronco05
Westjet Plane Makes Emergency Landing. posted Mon Apr 29 2002 08:00:02 by YEGPIX