lax2000
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 9:12 am

Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:03 am

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


 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:12 am

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.
 
KLM747
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:07 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:28 am

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

KLM747 Big grin
 
dispatcher
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 1999 12:05 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 7:01 am

Wow, I just jumpseated on that flight on March 3rd. Never did like only 2 engines over water.
 
Gregg
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2000 12:49 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 7:42 am

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.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 7:49 am

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
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 8:07 am

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.
 
OH-LGA
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 1999 1:42 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 8:10 am

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
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2000 1:10 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 8:47 am

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.
 
cdfmxtech
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 11:37 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 8:54 am

What kind of engines dows United use on their B767s...
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 9:29 am

CdfMXTech,

UA uses the same PW4000s as they do on their 744s on the 767.
 
Mit
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 6:48 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 10:03 am

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
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 10:37 am

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
 
Critter_592
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2000 3:07 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 10:51 am

What's ETOPS and will somebody give the difference between the regulars, and ETOPS.
 
User avatar
boeingrulz
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 1999 2:55 am

RE: Galaxy5

Wed Mar 07, 2001 10:54 am

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 avatar
boeingrulz
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 1999 2:55 am

RE: Fire Supression And Etops

Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:21 am

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

 
wingman
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:23 am

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.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:25 am

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
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 12:00 pm

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.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Galaxy 5

Wed Mar 07, 2001 12:05 pm

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
 
UAL Bagsmasher
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 1999 12:52 pm

More Info...

Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:43 pm

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.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: More Info...

Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:48 pm

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
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 6:48 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:49 pm

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?
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:57 pm

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
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 1999 12:52 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:58 pm

A sucessful restart of both engines was accomplished.
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 2:16 pm

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.
 
L-1011-500
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 2:40 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 2:48 pm

Statistically, the more engines you have, the higher the risk of not all working correctly is higher. It is true.

L-1011-500

 
r347216
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 3:59 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 2:56 pm

Were these engines Pratt & Whitney?
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 3:02 pm

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 the other engine failed !!!!!!!

As for the overweight landing, do you remember the CX 744 that had a engine explode on takeoff from Kai Tak ??, the whole engine did explode, the aircraft was going to Europe and had no time to dump fuel. It made a landing way over the maximum weight and is still in service today. No major damage was caused to the aircraft.
 
L-1011-500
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 2:40 pm

Most Bland Livery

Wed Mar 07, 2001 4:41 pm

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 large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Bill Kokkotas



Air France - France is a lively country, can't the livery be so too?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Edward Lai



Dragonair - What? It's not wet-leased?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Aeroflot- Still behind the West, even in paint scheme! Bring back the new look colors!

Any Others?

L-1011-500
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Most Bland Livery

Wed Mar 07, 2001 5:03 pm

L-1011-500 , thats the kind of thing to start a new topic for. I don't see how it is related.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 9:05 pm

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. they are manufactured the exact same way. since i have no difference in maintenance manuals to show you that ETOPS engines are maintained to higher standards the information doesnt exist. i have done engine maintenance and still hang around with guys who do and they also state there is no difference in how the engines are maintained on a 2 engine aircraft as oppossed to a 3- or 4 engine aircraft, but if it makes you feel better than you believe what you want.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Wed Mar 07, 2001 9:52 pm

Galaxy5, where do you get your info from?! FACT: ETOPS-certified aircraft have different maintenence standards, more frequent inspections, etc etc. Are you inventing mechanic friends to back up your position? Are these mechanics who say ETOPS engines and airframes are identically maintained to non ETOPS engines and airframes any relation to LAWYERGAL par chance? Get a life!
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 12:23 am

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 this is true. As for those who say it makes little sense, I agree. My hypothesis on why that is, when the FAA/JAA agreed to ETOPS in the first place, they were free to rewrite the previous fire suppression criteria with a free hand without contending with the manufacturers/airlines about pre-existing regs being sufficient. In essense, "if you want ETOPS, then all previous bets are off and you shall conform to more stringent regulations".

When I worked at AA, even routine maintenance conformed to ETOPS rules. For example, on the 767 if you serviced both IDG's (integrated drive generators), the a/c was knocked out of its ETOPS status for that flight. Also, they monitored APU oil consumption rates each flight, and many more things which are too numerous to mention or I forgot (probably the latter). Yes, the airlines take ETOPS very seriously, among other things its a privilege the FAA can take away or reduce on an airline to airline basis.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 12:47 am

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 involved in maintaining engines on ETOPS certified airplanes are different to non-ETOPS certified airplanes. (i.e changing same parts on both engines or swapping parts)

FACT: The SAME ENGINE is used for ETOPS/NON ETOPS.

FACT: The engine maintenance standards required for an ETOPS aircraft are HIGHER particularly in relation to IFSD’s and Oil Consumption.

FACT: There are different MEL stipulations for ETOPS and NON-ETOPS aircraft.

FACT: Mechanics MUST be ETOPS qualified. (i.e. you can have a B777 Mechanic who cant sign off an ETOPS flight.)

FACT: Pilots must be trained to operate ETOPS flights. (i.e. you can have a B777 Pilot who isn’t allowed to operate a B777 ETOPS flight.)

FACT: Flight Dispatchers must be trained to operate ETOPS flights. (i.e. you can have a B777 Dispatcher who isn’t allowed to dispatch a B777 ETOPS flight.)

These are the FACTS my friend, please don’t tell me that I’m wrong, PROVE IT!!!!!

While you are at it, go read the advisory circular 120-42A.




 
iwantanL1011
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 12:24 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 12:55 am

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 glide pretty well.
 
wingman
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 2:19 am

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 right?
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 2:57 am

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...
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 3:12 am

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 engines, there is really no need to have more than two engines except in the case of the 747 & A380 ie they need four engines just to get off the ground.
 
B747
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:08 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 8:41 am

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 the right engine on west-bound, and the left engine on east-bound legs. Also, it is said, (and I don't have a source, just read it one time in Aviation Weekly) that says a PW4056 that United owns would go on an ETOPS aircraft first, then as it ages with hours would be placed on a 747-400, before the next major overhaul, as it is less critical on the 744.
Brian
At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 11:29 am

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 go on any other airplane that is a fact, they are manufactured the same and have to meet the same specifications. yes they do get examined more often but they get examined the same way as any other engine that is a fact, and all of your other facts have nothing to do with engines i dont know why you put them there but what ever. and how do you want me to prove the engines are the same since well, they are the same.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 12:20 pm

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 going though checks and services. If all goes well, it will be out in revenue service tomorrow morning.  Smile

Focusing on your comfort!
U N I T E D
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Thu Mar 08, 2001 1:57 pm

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 my second fact....

But getting back to one of your first postings...

""""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.""""""

You jump in accusing people of giving wrong information and even when people have proved to you that the engines are 1: Not maintained the same 2: Not treated the same and that the aircraft has a higher level of fire suppression, you wont listen........

Anyway this is getting pedantic, if you do want to know more about ETOPS and it procedures, please read the advisory circular, Boeing and Airbus also publish interesting manuals on the subject.


 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Fri Mar 09, 2001 12:18 pm

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 consequences. In one, you can land, and in the other, you most probably die.

A double engine failure on a twin WILL happen. It is just a matter of time. having, said that, I still know that it is safer than crossing the road, taking the bus etc...and in a year and a bit when I start flying twins, I won't think about double engine failures, as it would be extreme bad luck for it to happen to me!!
 
akelley728
Posts: 1964
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Fri Mar 09, 2001 12:21 pm

Galaxy5:

The FAA clearly states that maintenance procedures on an ETOPS plane are different from procedures for normal two-engined aircraft.

The circular that Ambasaid mentioned lists all of the ways ETOPS planes are different from normal. Appendix 4 of the circular mentions just how many ways the MAINENANCE procedures are different.

I'm not going to go into detail, but I want to type here one important paragraph from Appendix 4:

(9) Maintenance Training. The maintenance training
program should focus on the special nature of ETOPS. This program should be included in the normal maintenance training program. The goal of this program is to ensure that all personnel involved in ETOPS are provided the necessary training so that the ETOPS programs are properly accomplished and to
emphasize the special nature ETOPS maintenance requirements. Qualified maintenance personnel are those that have completed the operator's extended range training program and have satisfactorily performed extended range tasks under the direct supervision of a FAA certificated maintenance person; who has had
previous experience with maintaining the particular make and model aircraft being utilized under the operator's maintenance program.
---
Why would the FAA specifically state that ETOPS maintenance is of a 'special nature' if it wasn't DIFFERENT from maintenenance on a normal two-engined jet?

I suggest the following link from the FAA...
http://www.aea200.ea.faa.gov/ea01/advisorycirculars.htm
this way YOU can download 120-42A for yourself and read the whole thing when you get a chance.

One more thing, after you've read it and realized how wrong you were, please come back here and apologize to the whole forum for your childish attitude.
 
Jet-A gasguy
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:04 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Fri Mar 09, 2001 3:44 pm

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 morning! Big grin

Jet-A gasguy
Find a job you love, and you'll never work a day in your life.
 
Guest

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Fri Mar 09, 2001 4:03 pm

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 the dead center middle of the ocean and still make to its destinantion or closest alternate. I also believe the ETOPS engines have been given much more rigourous testing and found to be much more reliable than anything in the sky previous.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Engines Fail On LA-Bound United Jet

Fri Mar 09, 2001 4:20 pm

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, whats funny is that from what my sources tell me, ETOPS was not even a key component in this inncedent.

Uniting the World
STAR Alliance

flyU N I T E D
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

Some Credible Media Info Re: UA Flight

Sat Mar 10, 2001 1:20 am

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: CX Flyboy

Sat Mar 10, 2001 2:08 am

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 play dice where probability to get, say, "1" is equal to 1/6, making even six attempts you may still NOT get "1" (with probability around 1/3). Of course, you chances are much better if you try it not 6 but 36, 66, 1,000,000,... times, but both engines failure probability is VERY small, and even 1,000,000 attempts may be still not enough to really increase chances it to happen. What is important, we discuss situations where the engines fail by DIFFERENT, INDEPENDENT reasons - otherwise we should say not "both" but "all" engines failure, meaning "all 4" for a quad, and in this situation, as I said above, twin may be more safe since to restart one engine is definitely enough for it while may be not enough for a quad. While so far there were no "separate" both engines failures but there were some ALL engines failures (including at least one quad). So, even if once a "real ETOPS" crash happens, it is still less probable than "all engines" accident where twins have at least no less chance to survive than quads.

Who is online