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.

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

I was just going to say the same thing. I wouldn't think winds would be such an issue this time of year. :confused:

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

Um....I would bet my whole year's salary that they did not shut down an engine due to a favorable jetstream

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.

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

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.

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

I can't imagine what it would be like to be on a flight and hear one of the engines just immediatlely shut down in flight.

I wouldn't say it's a common occurance to lose power on an engine, but it happens. That is the one thing that is ALWAYS on any checkride or sim event that we have. Power loss on an engine is always practiced while at the most critical phase of flight-takeoff. We're very well training in engine failures. It'll definately create some excitment up front, but not usually not something life threatening. The real danger would be an engine fire that wouldn't go out...something along that line

Turning off an engine, for whatever reason, would also unbalance things a lot less, I'm thinking, on a Tristar, because there is still equal power under both wings.

Particularly for anyone in the path of the falling engine.

Cheers.

I've merged all the open threads on this.

Odd question . . .
 

When an engine fails on an aircraft, does the aircraft automatically adjust to keep it balanced, since the thrust isn't equal any longer, or do the pilots have to constantly "fight" to keep it stable? I've always imagined the tail rudder at some extreme position just to keep the aircraft stable. Or are there other measures in place to maintain the balance?

Yeah, that's gotta hurt.

Not only do I not believe that this happened, but there are so many other problems that they would have by just shutting down an engine due to favorable jetstream.

First off, DL would have them fired if they knew they did that
Second, it's stupid
Third, every multi engine airplane has a service ceiling. A two engine airplane would have it's service ceiling and single engine service celing which would be lower due to the loss of power in one engine. So, with the L10 on 3 engines they may be able to cruise at 37,000, but with two engines maybe only 24, 000 and even lower on only one.
Fourth, down at a lower altitude you're burning more fuel and with only two engines you're going to fly slower...not economic, nor desirable

Do I really need to go on?

I was only responding to the issue of why the pax on the DL flight might not have noticed any change, if it was the middle engine. I would also guess that, assuming the poster of that experience was telling the truth, that they had an engine failure, and that this was how they kept the pax calm, in case they did notice some change.

Not to mention the path of the falling plane. Remember, the engine falling off was what brought that DC-10 (blanking on the flight number) down 25yrs ago.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but my understanding is that shutting down a jet engine would make the plane go slower and burn more fuel, due to windmilling/drag from the shut down engine. Perhaps someone could clarify but this seems like an urban legend to me.

EDIT: Sure enough, our favorite pilot says the same. Last one on the draw as usual.

Probably not for long. All airlines have spare engines, so it is just a matter of replacing it (can be done in a matter of hours if AA keeps a spare in JFK, which I bet they do). All this assumes that the fault leading to engine failure was caused by the engine itself and not the airframe.

Sorry my comment really wasn't toward you but rather the original poster of that insane story.

Yes, this was American flight 191 from ORD to LAX. It literally lost the #1 engine on takeoff, creating a host of problems from which the pilots could not recover.

Also was the cause of the crash of an El Al Cargo 747 classic that crashed into an apartment building shortly after takeoff from AMS.

No problem.

The FAA in the past few months suspended for a year a Midwest Express crew for overflying many "suitable" airports after their B-717 had an engine problem/shut down. The crew continued on to MKE from over northern Ohio. As a pilot myself I would land at the nearest airport.

Check the BA boards here for a (verified many times over) story (from this year, IIRC) of a 747 pilot enroute from LAX to LHR hwho lost 1 of his 4 engines (no, not as in falling off) while over the US but proceeded on to LHR on the remaining 3. Apparently they ended up burning enough extra fuel that they had to declare a fuel emergency very close to London, but everything turned out fine and the British transportation agency report on the incident said the pilots did nothing wrong, IIRC.

Someone who remembers more details and perhaps has a link can flesh out this story...

Rules for 2 engine aircraft vs 4 engine aircraft differ. What the BA crew did was legal, not necessarily smart, but none the less it was legal to continue to their destination. Too bad they didnt make it there

Here's an animated discussion of the BA 747 and the official report of the incident. The FAA has proposed the maximum fine while the British authorities cleared the crew and BA:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=574181

§ 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19219, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121–207, 54 FR 39293, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 121–253, 61 FR 2614, Jan. 26, 1996]


Browse Previous | Browse Next



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They will notice.
 

I don't think you can say that with total certainty. I think it really depends on how the engine shuts down.

I was flying on a HP PHX-LAX(If I remember correctly) flight close to ten years ago, and shortly into the flight the starboard engine stopped. Well I noticed as well as a few other pax. I distinctly remember the change in sound, and speed.

It was not a comfortable feeling seeing that engine fan stopped.

You're comparing a Tri-Jet to a twin?

Hmm, the 2 engines of that AA A300 both came off (and landed in Queens) before the plane crashed.

It depends on the type of plane. If it's just a normal shutdown, you'll feel it less in an -80 or an RJ because of the nearly centerline thrust due to the engines being on the tail (positioned close together). You'll probably feel some more movement in a 73 or 75 due to the center of thrust being further away from the center of gravity.

Just this week on a DL shuttle flight LGA-BOS, we had an engine failure. The pilot came on the PA, reported the problem, said we'd be continuing to BOS and not to worry about the fire trucks awaiting our arrival. We landed, the fire department did a quick inspection, and off we went to the gate. I was almost surprised at what a non-event it was.

It's happened to twice. The first time the engine shut down with a loud bang about 10 feet from my ear (I was all the way in the back of an MD-80). The crew members were extremely professional and all the passengers remained very calm on both occasions.