united 747 emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
united 747 emergency
anyone out there have more info on this afternoon's UAL sydney-sanfrancisco shuttle...seems like it had a run with major weather and made an emergency landing in wellington....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It landed in Auckland, and it was a precautionary diversion, not an emergency landing as such. One hostie had a broken ankle, and some others had minor injuries. Best description of the effects of the turbulence was from a little darling of an Aussie about five or six years old. who described the vertical departure of her father, "who wasn't strapped in and floated up [with a vertical finger] like a big baloon," and the "beeg thump" when he arrived back in his seat!
Last edited by Samuel; 1st May 2002 at 21:09.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a little champion! Very well put for an ankle biter.
Surprised not to see any sensationalist media reporting though (so far). What's up guys, have we turned over a new leaf?
Surprised not to see any sensationalist media reporting though (so far). What's up guys, have we turned over a new leaf?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOP PRESS
Just heard about it on the radio 0900 AEST. Was pretty much what has been posted here but did mention CAT as the cause. Didnt seem to be too much sensationalism to it - it has to be coming though - the media can never help itself with aviation incidents!!
Twin
Twin
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ABC in Adelaide couldn't help a bit of sensationalism. The local morning crew picked up on the rather cute description of the turbulence by a small girl and commented afterwards that it was however no laughing matter as one pax sustained severe head injuries.
Severe head injuries???
Severe head injuries???
Why Auckland and not Nadi? Who knows!
The availability of Medical facilities, Engineering facilities, Ground support and accommodation for the passengers, replacement pilots and cabincrew.
A decision that no doubt involved many people. The crew, the company, engineering and medical staff.
There. That about covers it.
The availability of Medical facilities, Engineering facilities, Ground support and accommodation for the passengers, replacement pilots and cabincrew.
A decision that no doubt involved many people. The crew, the company, engineering and medical staff.
There. That about covers it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely. The passengers and crew located in downtown Auckland hotel, injured to Middlemore Hospital, none of them reported serious, though hostie now has a broken leg and was at the rear of the aircraft. The aircraft was undergoing safety checks before possible departure this afternoon/evening. Cats advised as problem, over Tonga. I watched both NZ and Nine news, and neither gave anything other than the facts. Remarkable it wasn't "life or death struggle over Pacific" as usual.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLW of a 400 (Qantas' anyway!) is 285 or 295T (fleet differences).
Burning around 11T per hour, if they had a TOW out of SY of more than 340T then they would have been above MLW when the incident occurred.
Burning around 11T per hour, if they had a TOW out of SY of more than 340T then they would have been above MLW when the incident occurred.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLW of a 400 (Qantas' anyway!) is 285 or 295T (fleet differences).
Burning around 11T per hour, if they had a TOW out of SY of more than 340T then they would have been above MLW when the incident occurred.
Burning around 11T per hour, if they had a TOW out of SY of more than 340T then they would have been above MLW when the incident occurred.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A Hotel somewhere
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My query had nothing to with questioning the Capt. decision, but more to with using the nearest available "port" with injured pax and crew. Given I understand that the UAL Flight Ops Manual directs the Techs use "...a significant port..." and that AKL is also "...destination airport..." and not any of the above reasons, is probably where the answer lies.
The MLW would not have any bearing whatsoever, with the ability to "dump".
In any event, as one who travels the "Ditch" regularly, I will continue to learn from my peers, and one day we will benefit with a solution to identifying CAT.
The MLW would not have any bearing whatsoever, with the ability to "dump".
In any event, as one who travels the "Ditch" regularly, I will continue to learn from my peers, and one day we will benefit with a solution to identifying CAT.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guyz, Just heard on Seven news Sydney the UA862 flight out of auckland for sfo again diverted back to auckland due to "a problem with the wings" - not sure what this means, just heard it on the update.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Melbourne Age" Breaking News
Third time unlucky as UA jet calls another emergency
AUCKLAND, May 3 AFP|Published: Friday May 3, 8:28 PM
A United Airlines Boeing 747 that was involved in a mid-air drama earlier this week was today forced to make an emergency landing here with malfunctioning flaps.
For many of the passengers it was a case of third time unlucky.
Late on Wednesday, the aircraft was flying from Sydney to San Francisco when it struck severe turbulence over Tonga, injuring seven people. It made an emergency landing in Auckland after suffering what one passenger described as "an earthquake in the air".
Many of the passengers on that flight were to have flown out today on the same aircraft, but later in the evening were again back in Auckland.
An American businessman said the plane had been in the air only 90 minutes out of Auckland in its third attempt to get to San Francisco, when the captain announced it was losing air pressure and would have to turn back.
The captain also announced the aircraft's flaps were possibly malfunctioning and emergency vehicles would be on the tarmac to greet the plane as it landed at Auckland.
The businessman, who did not want to be named because he was negotiating compensation with United Airlines, said the flight to San Francisco was rescheduled for 2:30pm yesterday (1230 AEST) but was delayed until 6:30pm (1630 AEST).
After passengers climbed aboard, they had to wait on the tarmac for four hours before that flight too was abandoned.
"The captain said they had a strange noise on the plane so we cleared customs for a second time and went back to the hotel," he said.
"Airline staff said 'oh this is unprecedented, it's terrible... we have a new plane for you' (for Friday's flight).
"But it wasn't, it was the same plane and the flight attendant acknowledged that."
Passengers returned to the airport this morning for their third attempt to get to San Francisco. Many were feeling relaxed as the plane successfully took off but things soon went wrong.
The captain said there was a serious mechanical problem, the plane was losing air pressure and needed to turn back to Auckland.
He said a related problem meant the flaps, which help the plane land, might not be operating and the plane needed to go to "secondary power".
While flight attendants moved to the exit rows, the captain told passengers not to be alarmed.
But the businessman said: "Everyone's pretty tense, my wife was freaking out. She was told initially it wasn't the same (plane) so she was upset it was.
"After we landed the captain said if we'd gone any further it would have been a big problem."
The passengers were at first incredulous, the businessman said, and half the passengers scheduled to reboard a United Airlines flight last night were refusing to get back on the plane.
He said it should not have been the same plane that was involved in the turbulence and the situation was "beyond a joke".
Many of the people on board the flight had evidence of their injuries from the Wednesday night flight, including neck braces.
By Michael Field
Third time unlucky as UA jet calls another emergency
AUCKLAND, May 3 AFP|Published: Friday May 3, 8:28 PM
A United Airlines Boeing 747 that was involved in a mid-air drama earlier this week was today forced to make an emergency landing here with malfunctioning flaps.
For many of the passengers it was a case of third time unlucky.
Late on Wednesday, the aircraft was flying from Sydney to San Francisco when it struck severe turbulence over Tonga, injuring seven people. It made an emergency landing in Auckland after suffering what one passenger described as "an earthquake in the air".
Many of the passengers on that flight were to have flown out today on the same aircraft, but later in the evening were again back in Auckland.
An American businessman said the plane had been in the air only 90 minutes out of Auckland in its third attempt to get to San Francisco, when the captain announced it was losing air pressure and would have to turn back.
The captain also announced the aircraft's flaps were possibly malfunctioning and emergency vehicles would be on the tarmac to greet the plane as it landed at Auckland.
The businessman, who did not want to be named because he was negotiating compensation with United Airlines, said the flight to San Francisco was rescheduled for 2:30pm yesterday (1230 AEST) but was delayed until 6:30pm (1630 AEST).
After passengers climbed aboard, they had to wait on the tarmac for four hours before that flight too was abandoned.
"The captain said they had a strange noise on the plane so we cleared customs for a second time and went back to the hotel," he said.
"Airline staff said 'oh this is unprecedented, it's terrible... we have a new plane for you' (for Friday's flight).
"But it wasn't, it was the same plane and the flight attendant acknowledged that."
Passengers returned to the airport this morning for their third attempt to get to San Francisco. Many were feeling relaxed as the plane successfully took off but things soon went wrong.
The captain said there was a serious mechanical problem, the plane was losing air pressure and needed to turn back to Auckland.
He said a related problem meant the flaps, which help the plane land, might not be operating and the plane needed to go to "secondary power".
While flight attendants moved to the exit rows, the captain told passengers not to be alarmed.
But the businessman said: "Everyone's pretty tense, my wife was freaking out. She was told initially it wasn't the same (plane) so she was upset it was.
"After we landed the captain said if we'd gone any further it would have been a big problem."
The passengers were at first incredulous, the businessman said, and half the passengers scheduled to reboard a United Airlines flight last night were refusing to get back on the plane.
He said it should not have been the same plane that was involved in the turbulence and the situation was "beyond a joke".
Many of the people on board the flight had evidence of their injuries from the Wednesday night flight, including neck braces.
By Michael Field
Many of the people on board the flight had evidence of their injuries from the Wednesday night flight, including neck braces.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of Nuthin
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come fly the friendly skies....Yeah you can't escape em.
Is the beer better in Auckland?
It continued on this morning (Aus time) had to reeeturn to Auckland due pressurisation problem.....
What a duty day, poor sods!
The logbook would be hard to follow!
Sand Wedge, James, I bunkered it again....
Is the beer better in Auckland?
It continued on this morning (Aus time) had to reeeturn to Auckland due pressurisation problem.....
What a duty day, poor sods!
The logbook would be hard to follow!
Sand Wedge, James, I bunkered it again....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the same acft was involved in the first two problems. A spare acft was flown out and it was involved in the third problem. Another acft was flown out and on Saturday morning there were THREE United 744s parked at AKL (one at the gate and two out on a nearby taxiway). On Sunday night there were no United 744s to be seen, so I assume the passengers managed to get away on their fourth attempt.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operations worst nightmare.
Aircraft sent to recover another goes U/S followed by another.
Some days it's just better to stay in bed.
That businessman needs to get a life, sh!t happens and more often than not in threes.
Oh God, my life is not going exactly as I planned, damn it, whom do I sue???
Of course by his reckoning, UAL set out to deliberately wreck his itinerary and his personal day.
So he thinks the universe revolves around his personal fundament, guess what.
I don't suppose he has actually sat down and thought about the miracle that enables him to get from AKL to LAX sitting in a lounge room for a few hours sipping a scotch.
Aircraft sent to recover another goes U/S followed by another.
Some days it's just better to stay in bed.
That businessman needs to get a life, sh!t happens and more often than not in threes.
Oh God, my life is not going exactly as I planned, damn it, whom do I sue???
Of course by his reckoning, UAL set out to deliberately wreck his itinerary and his personal day.
So he thinks the universe revolves around his personal fundament, guess what.
I don't suppose he has actually sat down and thought about the miracle that enables him to get from AKL to LAX sitting in a lounge room for a few hours sipping a scotch.
