AA Flt. 1134 (LAX/LHR) Loses Engine, Diverts to JFK

 
Old Jul 26, 2006, 7:03 am
  #1  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: AA Plat, UA, CO, DL, Hhonors Gold
Posts: 402
AA Flt. 1134 (LAX/LHR) Loses Engine, Diverts to JFK

For those that are interested... one of the 777's is probably out of comission:

Jetliner Loses Engine, Lands Safely in NYC
Jul 26 8:08 AM US/Eastern
Associated Press
NEW YORK

A jetliner carrying more than 250 people lost power in one of its two engines Wednesday but landed safely at a nearby airport, officials said.

The Boeing 777 plane landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport less than a half hour after the engine failed, said American Airlines spokesman Billy Sanez. Officials were investigating what caused the problem on Flight 134.

"The plane landed after the captain declared an emergency," Sanez said. "It's not a common incident, but the pilots are trained to deal with these situations."

The plane was en route to London from Los Angeles. Sanez said all the passengers would be put on another plane.
f9999 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 7:06 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Singapore
Programs: AA Gold, IHG & Marriott Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,024
That's odd. JFK isn't all that close to the great circle route between LHR and LAX. Winds, maybe?
sipples is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 7:15 am
  #3  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: AA Plat, UA, CO, DL, Hhonors Gold
Posts: 402
Originally Posted by sipples
That's odd. JFK isn't all that close to the great circle route between LHR and LAX. Winds, maybe?
Nah, looks like they went out of the way. Probably had more to do with maintenance and/or alternate ways to get pax to LHR at Kennedy.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL134
f9999 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 7:16 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,191
Originally Posted by sipples
That's odd. JFK isn't all that close to the great circle route between LHR and LAX. Winds, maybe?
I was just going to say the same thing. I wouldn't think winds would be such an issue this time of year.
ijgordon is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:13 am
  #5  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by ijgordon
I was just going to say the same thing. I wouldn't think winds would be such an issue this time of year.
Aren't they supposed to land at the closest airport? - it seems like a risk not to land at the closest airport even if it would be more expensive for AA.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:13 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ASHBURN,VA,USA
Programs: UA 1K3MM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium , Hertz PC
Posts: 405
Engine failure on 777 LAX-London today

I was just wondering if there was any perceptible feel for the passengers when a 777 is flying on one engine : does it still fly straight ?
can the unbalance of thrust be compensated fully , after all in high winds it's not uncommon to fly slightly off ....
Again just wondering if the perception by PAX would be noticeable / different than a highwind situation ...
pbr6891 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:16 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP-1MM, SPG Gld, HH Silver, Skymiles, Marriott Silver, Hyatt GP Plat , CO Peon, Hertz 5 Star
Posts: 1,371
Passengers would not notice a difference on flying on one engine. I was on a DL flight several about 8 years ago aboard an L10-11 in J. We had a favorable jet stream so the pilots shut down one engine and as we began our approach the fired it up again. We didn't notice a thing when he shut it down during flight.
chsb is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:23 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
Originally Posted by elitetraveler
Aren't they supposed to land at the closest airport? - it seems like a risk not to land at the closest airport even if it would be more expensive for AA.
I believe it's the pilot's call. The 777 is designed to fly for quite some distance on one engine. Note that if an engine failed in the middle of the Atlantic, it would have to fly at least 1500 miles on one engine, and if an engine failed in the middle of the Pacific, even further. Yet, we don't see frequent reports of these aircraft going into the drink.

If the pilot requests the nearest airport that can handle a 777 landing, he will get it.
gemac is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:24 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: CO Gold, UA Premier Exec
Posts: 1,539
Originally Posted by chsb
Passengers would not notice a difference on flying on one engine. I was on a DL flight several about 8 years ago aboard an L10-11 in J. We had a favorable jet stream so the pilots shut down one engine and as we began our approach the fired it up again. We didn't notice a thing when he shut it down during flight.
Um....I would bet my whole year's salary that they did not shut down an engine due to a favorable jetstream
AEpilot76 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:25 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: CO Gold, UA Premier Exec
Posts: 1,539
Originally Posted by elitetraveler
Aren't they supposed to land at the closest airport? - it seems like a risk not to land at the closest airport even if it would be more expensive for AA.
Closest suitable airport

The 777 is at LEAST certified to fly 180 minutes on one engine, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that.
AEpilot76 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:40 am
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by AEpilot76
Closest suitable airport

The 777 is at LEAST certified to fly 180 minutes on one engine, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that.

According to flightaware, it doesn't look like it landed at the closest suitable airport -- and closest was my thought - just because they are allowed to fly 180 minutes on one engine doesn't mean they should if there is a closer suitable airport say 20 minutes flying. It does not look like JFK was the closest suitable airport.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:44 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: CO Gold, UA Premier Exec
Posts: 1,539
Originally Posted by elitetraveler
According to flightaware, it doesn't look like it landed at the closest suitable airport -- and closest was my thought - just because they are allowed to fly 180 minutes on one engine doesn't mean they should if there is a closer suitable airport say 20 minutes flying. It does not look like JFK was the closest suitable airport.
Closest suitable could be one with:

Better emergency equipment
Maintanence base
Could be an AA/AE station
Longer Runways
Better Weather

Obviously the 3 experienced pilots and the dispatcher decided that JFK was the most suitable diversion airport. Everyone is safe, and most likely everything went very smoothly
AEpilot76 is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 8:46 am
  #13  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by AEpilot76
Closest suitable could be one with:

Better emergency equipment
Maintanence base
Could be an AA/AE station
Longer Runways
Better Weather

Obviously the 3 experienced pilots and the dispatcher decided that JFK was the most suitable diversion airport. Everyone is safe, and most likely everything went very smoothly

AE - thx for the clarification - i assumed closest suitable meant w a runway long enough to accomodate
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 9:29 am
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY (finally); previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM; BA GLD
Posts: 17,203
Keep in mind that this was not an emergency in the sense that the aircraft was in immediate peril. No fire. No smoke. The aircraft flies perfectly well on one engine. I have no doubt, as AEpilot76 has indicated, that the pilots in that plane were not playing with the safety of their passengers. And correct me if I'm wrong, AEpilot76, but it's not that uncommon for an aircraft to lose power in an engine. It happened to me once on takeoff on a BOS-LGA flight, and the pilot came on the air right away basically to say "no big whoop" but we'll be returning to BOS right away. We were chased down the runway by the emergency equipment, but other than that it certainly did seem like it was no big whoop.

BTW, I don't know if it was their intention to be hyperbolic, but the headline "Jetliner Loses Engine" (as opposed to the first sentence which reports that a jetliner lost power in one of its engines) makes it sound like an engine fell off the plane, which I have to imagine is a much bigger deal than just losing power.

Last edited by Blumie; Jul 26, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Blumie is offline  
Old Jul 26, 2006, 9:34 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 7,368
Originally Posted by Blumie
BTW, I don't know if it was there intention to be hyperbolic, but the headline "Jetliner Loses Engine" (as opposed to the first sentence which reports that a jetliner lost power in one of its engines) makes it sound like an engine fell off the plane, which I have to imagine is a much bigger deal than just losing power.
I'd blame that one on the Associated Press, who came up with the headline "Jetliner Loses Engine, Lands Safely in NYC" in the first plane.

(FWIW, I thought the same thing as you when I first saw the headline.)

Mike
nako is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.