Thread in Newstand

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...0,761276.story

"An American Airlines MD-80 bound for Atlanta was forced to make an emergency landing Monday when one of its two rear-mounted engines failed shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport, airline officials said.

The plane landed a short time later at Kennedy Airport. No one was injured and the cause of the engine failure was not known Monday, said Tim Wagner, an American Airlines spokesman.

Passengers from the 140-seat aircraft were put on another American flight or on flights from other carriers to get to Atlanta, he said.

American Airlines flight 2393 took off from Runway 4 at 4:39 p.m. and airport personnel immediately knew there was a problem, officials said." ><snip><

You mean the jet that can fly on one engine? Or do they mean the jet that can take off with an engine failure at V1? Or do they mean they jet flown by two pilots who have practiced the event several times in the simulator, and briefed it before takeoff? I'm not sure which jet they were 'certian' was going to crash.

To save everyone the hassle, let me respond on behalf of the FT community:

1. Did the passengers receive compensation?

2. Have you noticed there have been a higher number of incidents lately?

3. Are the pilots shutting down engines to protest executive bonuses?

4. Were pre-departure beverages served prior to the engine failure?

5. Was the f/c FA planning on following "FEBO"?

6. Were refreshments served during the wait for a gate at JFK?

What did I miss?

7. How does this affect my upgrade chances LGA-ATL?

8. If they got bumped to a different airline, did they still earn their miles?

Were the FAs fat, old, off handed or just plain rude?


AEPlt76 - that was very funny!

Looking over the radar I have more serious questions. If this was in fact a level 2 emergency" (whatever that means), why didn't JFK clear traffic immediately as the craft was clearly vectored out of LGA for the north/south 22l/r arrival runway at JFK? Looking over the tape (http://www4.passur.com/lga.html) he was at 1100 ft. and pointed straight at 22. Why did they vector him right spinning him out to go toward brooklyn for a 31l/r approach? If this was an emergency where they thought he might not make it, why not keep him on the southern flight path out to Jamaica Bay? Or better yet why not waive off the other traffic on final from 13r and let him put down directly on 22? Why put him over the populated land areas of Queens and Brooklyn? Also, why did they have him lined up for 31l/r and then vector him off to go around 180 degrees to 13r (which was the landing configuration at the airport at the time)?

Notwithstanding the article about how 'good' the coordination by the airport authority was, it seems to me these folks were kept in the air for about 10 minutes longer than needed to keep traffic moving at JFK.

Certain people on the ground may have thought he wasn't going to make it, but in the airplane it was most likely a very controlled and relatively calm environment. Assuming the airplane is flying as it should on one engine, no fire, and everything is under control, they need time to secure the engine, run the appropriate checklists and brief the flight attendants. The 10 minutes of vectoring allows them to do that, and it also allows them to burn off some extra gas. Remember, an engine failure is not an out-of-control situation. As for immediately going for 22, 22 is shorter than the 13's, and if the wind favors 13's I'd be putting it down there in an emergency.

x. Is this a trend?
x.i What type of uniform did the F/As wear?
x.ii Will other carriers follow?
x.iii Should I complain?

cheers,

--J

That isn't a decision made by ATC. The pilots of the emergency aircraft tell ATC where they will land and when.

It takes time to run through the engine flameout checklist, engine securing checklist, setup and brief the landing, quick return checklist and have the F/A's prepare the cabin for the emergency landing. A 10 to 15 minute flight would be normal.

This discussion clearly demonstrates the extent to which the media and the general public misunderstand "emergency" landings, which are an everyday occurrence in the airline industry. As AEpilot76 and LarryJ can tell us far better than I, occasionally one of these situations truly is emergent, where the aircraft needs to get on the ground as soon as possible, but the vast majority of these situations are relatively routine and not at all emergencies in the sense of "oh my god, we're about to crash." Personally, I find FT threads reporting that an aircraft landed with one engine to be about as exciting as those that report that flight 4055 finally has departed ORD.

9. The FAs did not serve me beverage while in the air. They were just chit-chatting on the intercom with the pilots. In Europe, I would've been served a 3 course meal.

Yes, but I bet the would only have served the inferior Piper Heidsieck instead of Krug. Sniff.

Grrrr. Like the issues with inspections in March and April are related to the engine failure yesterday.

I really hate how stupid the media always is when it comes to anything aviation (that "little airplane" syndrome for GA). It is statements like these that lead Pa Kettle to say, "Golly, don't fly AA. They had all them planes shut down by the Po-lice in MArch because of bad engines and then one blew up in that there New York City a few days ago."

9) Were there screaming kids involved and were they kicking the seat backs?

10) Any foreigners in the exit row?