View Full Version : AA 777 Eng Failure

25th Feb 2004, 23:59

February 23, 2004 -- Passengers on a Tokyo-bound flight out of Kennedy Airport got the scare of a lifetime yesterday when one of the plane's engines failed and the aircraft was forced to turn around and make a dramatic emergency landing.
"There was a big bang. We took off and it was like we'd just run over something - just a huge bang," said Adrian McDermott, 38, one of the 153 passengers and 10 crew members aboard. "It actually kind of made us dip."

The short and scary round trip of American Airlines Flight 167 began when the Boeing 777 took off at 12:31 p.m. - an hour late.

A spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration said one of the plane's engines stalled at take-off.

26th Feb 2004, 03:38
Would doubt that AA would send a 777 across the Pacific with only 153 pax onboard!!

Certainly not a profit making trip :ooh:

26th Feb 2004, 04:18
Probably not a non-stop flight, so would be picking up more pax somewhere. Even so flights are generally not cancelled because of low loads. There is a domino effect to be avoided. Flight doesn't fly to Tokyo, then no aircraft in Tokyo to fly pax out of Tokyo.

Once flew BA LHR CDG on a 763 with 11 other pax on board.

26th Feb 2004, 04:50
...scare of a lifetime...
A bit much, no?

I'm personally aware of two other US-registered part 121 aircraft carrying more than 150 pax which lost an engine on takeoff on the 23rd and had to return for a "dramatic" landing (my missus was crewing one of them. Drained the oil out of that bad boy.). Bet there were more. And more yesterday. Even more today. Will the terror never cease? Was the engine which caused this near death experience a Pratt or a GE? I say make 'em pay. (Obviously couldn't have been one of the Trents... they never quit...:) )

Yeah. I know. Journos. Guess I'm just a bit more sensitive than usual today... Of course, if I've missed something, please point it out...


26th Feb 2004, 05:26
It was a compressor stall on the left engine.
The flight is a nonstop flight, scheduled for 14hours 10 min Westbound, 12hrs 40min Eastbound, flown with 4 pilots.
Another aircraft and crew were dispatched, left JFK at 1814
and arrived NRT at 2238.

26th Feb 2004, 06:34

If I'm not confused, wasn't the first 77 engine failure a Trent?

Malaysian at Melbourne??

Is this type pushing ETOPS to the limit?


26th Feb 2004, 06:55
AA have Trents on their 777's

They have to go wrong sometimes

Speaking of low loads and NRT. I once flew out of there on Jan 1st at 11am on BA.There was 1 in F, 3 in J and 41 down the back.

It was my "pre" honneymoon and we got the upper deck all to ourselves. Its very quiet on a 747 with just 45 paxs

26th Feb 2004, 07:02
FAA regs state, and correct me if i'm wrong, that any scheduled flight must take place and can not be cancelled due to low pax turnout. You can delay it (and hope for a better turnout), but at one point the scheduled flight must take place. So besides the domino effect Rollingthunder stated, this would be another reason it took off anyway.

26th Feb 2004, 07:10
Would doubt that AA would send a 777 across the Pacific with only 153 pax onboard
AA 777 has 237 seats. F18 C56 Y163.

That's 65% load factor, or two-thirds full. Which for low season in February is probably not too bad for the route. Transpacific routes also tend to do much better than transatlantic for selling cargo capacity, so there will be a lot of revenue under the floorboards as well.

26th Feb 2004, 07:21
31 Jan 01-- Melbourne-- 777-300 A6-EMM-- "Failure of the RB211 Trent 892 engine as fitted to the aircraft was a result of the release of a single blade from the low-pressure compressor (fan) rotor disk. "

Yup. See... that's why I put the little smilike winkie guy next to it. Like :) . Supposed to imply that I may be employing the rhetorical trope of irony, or perhaps hyperbole. It's like I'm being witty, but since I'm an American, I have to put the little simlie winkie guy there so you know that I don't mean it literally, because everybody knows we Americans don't get irony or hyperbole... :) . (See. There it is again!).

Since you can't see my facial expressions (which would be like this :D right now), and since your ribs are too far away from my elbow for me to give you a "nudge-nudge," I've gone ahead and decided on :) as the universal substitute. If I've chosen an improper smiley, please find me another. I prefer subtle and tasteful. Just like all of us Americans :) (See? I did it again! It's like a kind of a JOKE thing!)

Dave :ok:

26th Feb 2004, 09:21

Nice One

Buster Hyman
26th Feb 2004, 09:58
The 777 in MEL was belonging to EK.:8

26th Feb 2004, 11:42
Rollingthunder and muppet:

both wrong, I'm afraid....that's a flight I've operated many times, and as stated elsewhere at this time of the year the belly holds will have been chockers - probably 30-40,000 lbs of cargo. The route has never been great since last spring, so 165 is not at all bad.

The 777 IGW will fly that route non-stop surprisingly easily even against winter winds; we would easily arrive with fuel for KIX as an alternate, for example. The aircraft nearly always beats the plan on burn, which for me is a first in ULH flying. The -400 was always a battle by comparison - if you couldn't make your planned climbs, you were in probs. Not so the 777. We have 207 min ETOPS, btw, on that route only.

I'm not trying to blow an AA trumpet, just Boeing's and Roll's. Great jet. So a donk blew at max grunt - so what? The crew did their job, so did the jet's designers. :ok:

26th Feb 2004, 22:39
Is this type pushing ETOPS to the limit?

Not at all.

If the flight can't get more than a few minutes away from a suitable airport on its own, then it is perfectly safe for ETOPS.

select your own smilies to add to this post

26th Feb 2004, 22:55
(I cannot remember if I read this somewhere, or if someone once told me that...)

Over a 24 Hour Period, there can be the equivalent (seats)of 50 empty 747's crossing the atlantic !!

Anyone care to comment ?