United Flight 96 EWR-TXL circling EWR due to engine problem

Discussion in 'United Airlines | MileagePlus' started by downhillcrasher, Aug 18, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. downhillcrasher

    downhillcrasher Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    2,395
    Status Points:
    1,270
    NYBanker likes this.
  2. NYBanker
    Original Member

    NYBanker Gold Member

    Messages:
    32,725
    Likes Received:
    191,901
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I wonder why they didn't dump at sea or even overland at altitude.

    Down one engine shouldn't be an issue for a 757 landing.

    I hope all ends safely.
     
    downhillcrasher likes this.
  3. downhillcrasher

    downhillcrasher Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    2,395
    Status Points:
    1,270
    I thought that fuel dumping equipment was an option on the 757. Perhaps CO never ordered it.

    Edit: according to boeing fuel jettison equipment was not available on the 757.
     
  4. ACMM
    Original Member

    ACMM Gold Member

    Messages:
    25,786
    Likes Received:
    113,108
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Article indicates

    "The engine was operating properly and the plane was burning fuel before landing, according to the FAA."

     
  5. unavaca
    Original Member

    unavaca Gold Member

    Messages:
    8,547
    Likes Received:
    11,224
    Status Points:
    14,495
    Looks like they're almost home.

    [​IMG]
     
    ACMM likes this.
  6. TravelerRob
    Original Member

    TravelerRob Silver Member

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    486
    Status Points:
    620
    Liveatc.net archived recordings of this flight should be fun. Glad everyone is safe.

    -RM
     
    downhillcrasher and ACMM like this.
  7. sdm1130
    Original Member

    sdm1130 Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Status Points:
    2,570
    This never would have happened if UA operated a 747 on every TATL flight. I can't believe they send 752s across the Atlantic!


    ;) :p
     
    rggale, skyvan, Ygor and 7 others like this.
  8. downhillcrasher

    downhillcrasher Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    2,395
    Status Points:
    1,270
    You're right, if they only flew 747s TATL, they would never fly to TXL!
     
    Ygor and HeathrowGuy like this.
  9. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,201
    Likes Received:
    61,716
    Status Points:
    20,020
    There is no fuel dump option.

    The issue is with weight. The plane will take off heavier than the max landing weight on a trip as long as this. They have to burn off enough so that the plane can land without destroying the landing gear.
     
  10. Hartmann
    Original Member

    Hartmann Gold Member

    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    14,556
    Status Points:
    14,520
    Not to mention that if there was fear of fire in the engine they'd probably try to burn from the opposite side tank and transfer fuel over (in case they lost the engine).

    I'd love to hear from the 757 pilot on TOBB.
     
    Wandering Aramean likes this.
  11. kansaskeith

    kansaskeith Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    5,786
    Status Points:
    4,070
    Now that we know no one was hurt, I have to comment on what seems to be the bizarre way UA displays the flight status of incidents like this on their web pages. If you call up Flight 96, it asks you which of two legs you are interested in, the EWR to EWR leg, or the EWR to TXL leg. And when you choose the latter, it says the flight (with a different aircraft serial number than the EWR-EWR leg) will run 5 hours, 10 minutes late on departure because of "Aircraft Servicing." All this is technically true of course, and I know from checking earlier incidents that this is the way UA does it. It just seems a rather bizarre way of trying to fit a serious incident ('square peg') into the 'round holes' of their computer flight-status system.

    But the pax and the crew are safe, and let's not forget that.
     
  12. kansaskeith

    kansaskeith Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    5,786
    Status Points:
    4,070
    I don't know the answer to this, so I will ask. Is a 744 less likely to have a tire-debris engine fire on takeoff than a 752?
     
  13. HeathrowGuy
    Original Member

    HeathrowGuy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    10,591
    Status Points:
    12,520
    No, marginally more likely by virtue of having more engines that can be potentially affected by debris intake. No USA-registered commercial transport is going to cross the ocean with passengers having lost an engine on takeoff/climb.

    But both aircraft are far safer in this regard than the Concorde :eek:
     
    BuckleandBoots and kansaskeith like this.
  14. cova

    cova Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Status Points:
    1,370
    Years back - when CO (now UA) flew 747's from EWR-LHR or FRA, a few times they had to shutdown one of the enignes TATL - oil leak or something like that. I was on one once. They just keep flying to the destination (no diversion) to Iceland or anything like that. Just that the plane slowed down - and it took maybe an extra 45 minutes to reach LGW.
     
    kansaskeith likes this.
  15. Olton Hall
    Original Member

    Olton Hall Gold Member

    Messages:
    10,016
    Likes Received:
    12,892
    Status Points:
    16,520
    It seems the plane landed with both engines operating properly. Eyewitness reports from take off were flames shooting out of the engine and popping sounds.
     
  16. kansaskeith

    kansaskeith Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    5,786
    Status Points:
    4,070
    Yes, I guess my question would be if tonight's incident, flames, popping sounds and a blown tire, had happened on a 4-engine airliner (at takeoff, not an oil leak midflight or the like), whether the crew would have just shut down the engine and continued thousands of miles over water to Berlin. I would hope not, but I don't know.

    There was one case of a DL airliner (two engines) which had dual-engine shutdown out of LAX and the pilot even gave a "get ready to crash" notification, but then they got the engines started again and went ahead to complete the flight all the way to CVG. The pax, who had been told to prepare to crash, were not really happy about that one, if I recall. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...delta-spokesman-bill-berry-unidentified-pilot
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  17. NYCAdventurer

    NYCAdventurer Gold Member

    Messages:
    11,382
    Likes Received:
    5,329
    Status Points:
    10,070
    Wonder how many miles passengers will earn for circling?
     
    Ygor, Flyer1976, MX and 2 others like this.
  18. Olton Hall
    Original Member

    Olton Hall Gold Member

    Messages:
    10,016
    Likes Received:
    12,892
    Status Points:
    16,520
    This is likely what the takeoff looked like (bird strike)
     
    Ygor, downhillcrasher and desamo like this.
  19. EWR764
    Original Member

    EWR764 Silver Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    580
    Status Points:
    670
    Ingestion of FOD can cause a compressor stall, otherwise known as a 'surge'. This would be accompanied by a loud bang, visible flames out of the back of the engine and serious vibration. The situation can resolve itself, but in most cases the prudent choice will be to land as soon as practicable.

    Here, it is likely that the engine resumed operating normally at some point, so there was no need to conduct an overweight landing and stress the airframe/landing gear. A few laps over North Jersey gets the airplane down to more manageable landing weight and avoids the prospect of a broken 757 when it's all said and done.
     
  20. kansaskeith

    kansaskeith Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    5,786
    Status Points:
    4,070
    For the uninitiated, 'FOD' is what? (I assume the 'D' is debris, but do not know. Thanks. I tried the MilePoint glossary, but it came up with "Fort Dodge, Iowa.")
     
  21. EWR764
    Original Member

    EWR764 Silver Member

    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    580
    Status Points:
    670
    Foreign Object Debris, basically any loose object (like chunks of a blown tire) that can be ingested into an engine and cause all sorts of damage.
     
    kansaskeith likes this.
  22. cova

    cova Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    2,241
    Status Points:
    1,370
    In my situation on a CO 747 - we were half way across the Atlantic. But no diversion to a closer airport, we continued to our final destination to LGW. I guess they could have diverted to somewhere in Iceland or Ireland - but this was an engine purposely shutdown - not a damaged engine.
     
  23. guberif

    guberif Silver Member

    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Status Points:
    825
    Can you imagine if you were listening to ch 9 during this? The only thing scarier would be if they shut it off after the engine strike.
     
  24. desamo

    desamo Gold Member

    Messages:
    9,320
    Likes Received:
    10,970
    Status Points:
    14,975
    Have you heard Suily's recording? He seemed unflappable.
     
    rggale likes this.
  25. legalalien
    Original Member

    legalalien Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,536
    Likes Received:
    9,301
    Status Points:
    7,770
    I would find it extremely comforting to be able to listen to Channel 9 and understand what's going on before the pilots have a chance to brief the pax - which I imagine would come after the situation is under control.
     

Share This Page