AA1134 LAX-LHR Loses Engine, Diverts to JFK

[Dream Land]

Flight 134, American Airlines. Link:http://www.wnbc.com/news/9576562/detail.html Kudos to the crew involved.

[BahrainLad]

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.

[Mercenary Pilot]

Bet they wish they were flying a 74'...could have flown all the way then. ;)

[barit1]

The flight left Los Angeles at 8:35 p.m. PDT and landed in New York about six hours later. A message left for a local Federal Aviation Administration official was not immediately returned early Wednesday.

Oh - and you expected... :rolleyes:

[Phileas Fogg]

Since when has JFK been a nearby airport to the LAX-London great circle route?

[Bumblebee]

Depends on the winds...I've operated LAX-LHR that far south. It's not a common occurence but does happen from time to time. Having said that, I don't know what the most usual ETOPS routing would be from there. I'm sure a Big Twin driver could enlighten us! ;)

[Jetdriver727]

I think comparing a pilot leaving lax and cont to lhr is a little diferent than going 1 hour south to accomidate your pax. Since the reason he continued to lhr was to save the company money. But that is a 3 engine driver's opinion. I get to second guess both :}

[Jet II]

I was getting quite excited there - I read it as:

"Engine Falls On Plane Carrying 253 People":ooh:

now where did I put my glasses?:uhoh:

[tilewood]

I was getting quite excited there - I read it as:
"Engine Falls On Plane Carrying 253 People":ooh:
now where did I put my glasses?:uhoh:


Now that would be a story worthy of starting a thread!! ;)

[WHBM]

As many here will know the "normal" eastbound routing on 134 would be overhead Winnipeg and Greenland, from all of which JFK would be a long way south.
Maybe there is more clarification to come.

[groundbum]

I wonder how soon it will be that when a captain runs his usual checklists and does his what-if's on the assorted scenarios, and part of his decision is based on how it would look on pprune!!

heck, lets create an ACARS->PPRUNE link and have a 5 minute open mike session before he decides what to do!

S

[squeaker]

The AP piece says he landed at JFK within half an hour of the engine failing, so he must have been relatively close (if the report is accurate!). Maybe he was already on the way there as a precaution (high vib/low oil pressure or something similar).

[Check Airman]

Filed Route

LOOP4 DAG J100 EKR KD66U BFF KP81C RWF
GEP SSM DOTTY CRONO 5200N 05000W 5300N
04000W 5300N 03000W 5300N 02000W MALOT
UL9 BURAK UL9 STU UP2 NUMPO Y3 NIGIT



Graphical view of actual flightpath

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL134/history/20060726/0352Z/KLAX/EGLL

Seems they were already en rute JFK or they may have passed a few "suitable" fields.

[WhatsaLizad?]

I guess we'll have to wait and see if the AA Captain had to divert at the last moment for lack of fuel for an accurate comparison.

He probably could have glided to one of many long runways on the divert route.

Seems a little different than pressing on over Greenland at night.:E


Keep in mind, both flights in question safely landed their pax despite our quibbling :ok:

[potkettleblack]

Be interested to know if this affects their ETOPS approval for the aircraft in question? If the engine wasn't actually shut down per se I thought that it didn't count as an in flight failure for ETOPS purposes?

[misd-agin]

Be interested to know if this affects their ETOPS approval for the aircraft in question? If the engine wasn't actually shut down per se I thought that it didn't count as an in flight failure for ETOPS purposes?

I've been told that only engine shutdowns in the ETOPS portion of the flight count against the ETOPS rate. Any expert's(???) on the accuracy of that statement?

Teller had an engine shutdown. Talked with tech and was told it wouldn't count since the flight was not in ETOPS regime at time of failure.

[J.O.]

Engine failures on ETOPs certified aircraft all count in the historical record of the engines involved, whether the failure occurs on an ETOPs flight or not.

[zlin77]

And the QRH says following the Engine Failure Checklist "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT"!!!!!!!!!!!!Was KJFK the nearest suitable?

[misd-agin]

And the QRH says following the Engine Failure Checklist "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT"!!!!!!!!!!!!Was KJFK the nearest suitable?

If the previously posted flight path is correct Toronto would have been closer.

[radar707]

The nearest suitble airport is for the captain to decide. The nearest airport is not.

Suitable could be for engineering purposes, passenger comfort etc etc, it could also be the destination airport.

[Preppy]

In the UK, CAP 513 defines a suitable airfield as:


A suitable aerodrome is an adequate aerodrome where, at the anticipated time of use, weather reports, or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions are very likely to be at or above the normal operating minima at the time of the intended operation, using the criteria set out in this Appendix. Where a condition is forecast as ‘Prob.’, provided the probability per cent factor is less than 40 per cent, then that condition can be ignored for planning minima purposes. ‘Tempo.’, ‘Inter.’ and ‘Gradu.’ conditions are normally qualified by a time band and must be considered in determining the suitability of an aerodrome with respect to planning minima. Where a time band is omitted then the conditions need not be considered with respect to planning minima. The commander is expected however to exercise good judgement in assessing the overall weather conditions when making a decision to exclude ‘Tempo.’, ‘Inter.’, ‘Gradu.’ and ‘Prob


And an adequate airfield is:


An adequate aerodrome is an aerodrome which the operator of the aircraft considers to be adequate, having regard to his responsibilities pursuant to Article 28(1)(c) of the Air Navigation Order (1989) and Regulations 7 and 15 of the Air Navigation (General) Regulations (1981). In particular, it should be expected that at the anticipated time of use:

a) the aerodrome will be available, and equipped with necessary ancillary services, such as ATC, sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids, and safety cover; and

b) at least one letdown aid (ground radar would so qualify) will be available for an instrument approach.






Please note that there is no mention of: "Suitable could be for engineering purposes, passenger comfort etc etc".

[GGV]

Well according to some airlines he could have continued on to London eh Guv?
The nearest suitble airport is for the captain to decide. The nearest airport is not.
Already above we can see the makings of an unending “debate” between the ignorant and the not so ignorant which might rival the earlier threads.

I have some 4 engined experience and some ETOPs experience and, as has been so often said, there is a WORLD of difference. The point of my post is that it might just be worth your while Danny getting yourself a real bone fide operational expert to prepare a short article for publication here for those who seem to be able to persuade themselves that there is a kind of equivalence in flying relatively short distances on one engine – but past operational airfields – and continuing for a substantial period on three engines past operational airfields.

Otherwise we are going to be driven to distraction with emphatic nonsense from those who never seem to stop and think. And, by the way, IMHO any professional pilot should be able to work this out with a little bit of effort.

My own view is simple: there is no equivalence of redundancy between these two cases. In one case an immediate landing is REQUIRED (subject to normal critera - not including commercial criteria), notwithstanding certificated POSSIBILITIES at the margin of operational limits (i.e. no commander's discretion). In the other case an immediate landing is not REQUIRED, but may or many not be the prudent thing to do (i.e. commander's discretion).

[WHBM]

If the previously posted flight path is correct Toronto would have been closer.
I would think Montreal actually. Quite some time into the southerly diversion they seem to have virtually passed overhead it. Which is 350mi, probably another hour at single-engine speeds, from JFK.

[Danny]

OK, in an attempt to try and prevent this becoming another of those threads where the Muppeteers try to take over the thread with speculation based on ignorance let's try to stick to the facts and... wait for it... educated speculation. All we can tell from the news story and the a/c's track is that at some stage the crew decided to divert to JFK. There is no mention that the decision to divert was taken at the time of actual engine failure.

It is possible that they had some indications that were worrying them and they decided to divert to JFK where they had suitable engineering and pax support. It is also possible that whilst having diverted and heading for JFK that the engine later failed and was shut down.

We don't need PC Flight Sim 'experts' jumping to conclusions based on their own limited ideas of ETOPS. Assuming that the engine actually failed where the diversion appears to have started obviously leads to the hand wringing and wailing of those who believe that the a/c should have done a dirty dive for the nearest piece of flat earth at that time. None of you know the full details and it is quite possible that the diversion was initiated long before the actual engine failure.

[WHBM]

To be honest I don't think anyone posting here would regard the AA crew as anything other than completely professional in being able to handle such situations.

What is still simmering though is the distaste for those really big-time "PC Flight Sim experts", the FAA, who seemed to take it out on the BA incident we are all aware of based on a lack of understanding that left many here breathless, although fortunately not quite speechless.

Like I said, AA professionalism 100%. BA 100% as well. Feds less so, I am afraid.

[Halfnut]

Just the facts off the APA board:

They heard a "thump" at FL350 north of ALB at 0350, about half way from LAX to LHR. FA's heard and felt it too - but no secondary indication anything was wrong. No eicas or status messages, engines smooth. Still, they all thought since "something" went "thump" - they better figure out what before crossing the North Atlantic. So after looking at their indicators they called Alliance Tech and Dispatch. Eventually they talked to RR reps and agreed a divert was recommended. Going through parameters they saw high VIB levels on right eng. Slightly elevated oil press and EGT, but otherwise ok. VIB level on LH ENG N2 was normal, RH ENG showed a trend arrow pointing off the top of the scale and it was N3, not N2. Still, the engine was running smooth.

With uncertainty of the engine's integrity, they decided to divert to JFK and as they reduced power, they got compressor stalls. More, as they went to idle, then the engine settled down. They continued smooth and easy in a descent, declaring emergency. At 22,000 feet the engine failed with no ill-effect since they had already gone to idle and started APU. Dumped fuel to about 65K pounds and landed around 475K.

[gas path]

RH ENG showed a trend arrow pointing off the top of the scale and it was N3
Educated guess here, stage 1 HPC blade failure.:8

[radar707]

Preppy, CAP513 also states:

"It is, therefore important that any aerodromes designated as en-route alternates should have the capabilities, services and facilities to safely support that particular aeroplane........
.......these considerations shall apply to all aerodromes which are considerd as alternates during the ETOPS segment, thus possibly include the departure and/or destination aerodromes."



I do not believe that this aircraft was flying the ETOPS segment therefore CAP513 doesn't apply to diversions outwith the ETOPS portion of a flight.

The CAP513 definitions of suitable therefore do not apply here. If they did, then suitable could be for engineering and/or passenger comfort purposes

[HectorusRex]

There seems to be some confusion as to where this flight was actually from on the way to LHR, since AA's link suggests it was JFK-LHR

All Safe After AA 777 Makes Engine-Out Landing

Thu, 27 Jul '06
Plane Bound For London

An American Airlines Boeing 777 on a flight from New York to London was forced to turn back Tuesday night... after the pilot lost an engine and declared an emergency.

Flight 134 was about a half-hour out of JFK when the flight crew shut down one of the widebody's two engines. There were 239 passengers and 14 crew members on board.

"The plane landed after the captain declared an emergency," American Airlines spokesman Billy Sanez said. "It's not a common incident, but the pilots are trained to deal with these situations."

Passengers eventually caught another flight. No word yet on what caused the engine problem.
FMI: www.aa.com

[Airbubba]

I doubt seriously if American pilots care too much about CAP 513, whatever that is. Here's the pertinent FAR:

Sec. 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.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-565-FAR.shtml

What some of us Microsoft pilots forget is that a long haul 777 has a lot of fuel to dump before it can get down to landing weight. After the dump and diversion, JFK was probably nearest suitable airport in point of time. And it was an AA maintenance base <g>...

[Willit Run]

Folks,
Lets not jump to conclusions. They may have had an oil leak, slow and figured they would not make it. They may have kept the thing running long enough to make a safe diversion to JFK. They may have had a vibe problem and pulled the power back to try and save it, still producing power, while they diverted. The list is endless!
WE do not casually shut down engines on a twin like we might on a 4 motored bird.:=

[flightopsab]

And it was an AA maintenance base <g>...

That's the important part! As as the crew determines that the situation is under control, they would have to pick the destination to divert and that's where the Captain earns his keep for the company. Whenever possible, the management would like to see the a/c divert to a "friendly" airport (i.e. mx base or at least multiple commercial flight in and out incase the plane is AOG and the part needs to be sourced and delivered)

[HotDog]

There seems to be some confusion as to where this flight was actually from on the way to LHR, since AA's link suggests it was JFK-LHR

AA134 is LAX/LHR.

[skol]

Since when has JFK been a nearby airport to the LAX-London great circle route?


I operated LAX-LHR about that date and flew over Chicago, Toronto, and used NAT V.
Good tailwinds at that time up to 120 kts.

[misd-agin]

I doubt seriously if American pilots care too much about CAP 513, whatever that is. Here's the pertinent FAR:


a long haul 777 has a lot of fuel to dump before it can get down to landing weight. After the dump and diversion, JFK was probably nearest suitable airport in point of time. And it was an AA maintenance base <g>...

From post #28 - (additional comment was that they landed overweight)(dumping fuel's nice but flying around on one engine just to dump fuel, with big runway's available, typically isn't done)

Just the facts off the APA board:

They heard a "thump" at FL350 north of ALB at 0350, about half way from LAX to LHR. FA's heard and felt it too - but no secondary indication anything was wrong. No eicas or status messages, engines smooth. Still, they all thought since "something" went "thump" - they better figure out what before crossing the North Atlantic. So after looking at their indicators they called Alliance Tech and Dispatch. Eventually they talked to RR reps and agreed a divert was recommended. Going through parameters they saw high VIB levels on right eng. Slightly elevated oil press and EGT, but otherwise ok. VIB level on LH ENG N2 was normal, RH ENG showed a trend arrow pointing off the top of the scale and it was N3, not N2. Still, the engine was running smooth.

With uncertainty of the engine's integrity, they decided to divert to JFK and as they reduced power, they got compressor stalls. More, as they went to idle, then the engine settled down. They continued smooth and easy in a descent, declaring emergency. At 22,000 feet the engine failed with no ill-effect since they had already gone to idle and started APU. Dumped fuel to about 65K pounds and landed around 475K.

[bubbers44]

The flight according to my information was on their normal course when the thump was felt over Canada. After conferring with mx. they decided to divert to JFK. On the way to JFK they had a complete engine shutdown and dumped fuel until they had to land so made an overweight landing because of time limitations. I think the whole thing was a textbook example of how to handle that kind of an emergency. Good job to the AA crew.

[skiesfull]

Although I've come late into this topic, I would like to make the following observations.
Th earlier 'definitions' of suitable and adequate are more pertinent in fuel planning but do have some relevance in this topic. Land at nearest suitable airfield with, say, a cargo fire warning, is quite different to land at the nearest suitable airfield with, say, an hydraulic system(s) failure. The former requires a high-speed descent and approach to an airfield where the aircraft can stop on the runway and the occupants leave by emergency exits before being consumed by smoke and/or fire. Such an airfield may not be one that subsequently the aircraft can be recovered from. In the latter case, considerations such as extra landing distance, crosswind limits etc. may affect the crews selection. In the American Airlines case, choice of JFK was made before the engine shutdown, as a precautionary diversion. Perhaps if the engine had failed at cruising altitude, then the crew may have chosen a nearer altitude. The point is that nearest suitable alternate, does not mean necessarily spiralling down to a landing strip within a few miles - it depends entirely on the nature of the problem and the availability of alternates at the time. In my opinion, the crew seem to have arrived at the decision to divert with only one priority - the safety of the aircraft, its passengers and crew. A job well done!

[100BMEP]

Wow...what a bunch of arm chair second guessers!...
:rolleyes:

[pcpilot2]

lets keep it simple.
Aircraft leaves point A for point B.
Aircrew become aware that something may not be A okay with the engines.
Using the systems available to them they investigate which leads onto consulting with company/engine tech staff.
The Capt makes the u-turn decision.
On way to Alternate engine stops.
They land.so what?.
Engines fail now and then. Even big ones on big planes.
If it happens again tomorrow,the result will probably be the same.
The crew made decisions based on the resourses at hand and using their training/experience made good a bad situation.Well done.
Let the Ppruners run off at the mouth if they wish.This is a rumour network after all.
If you can't stomach the rubbish that some people will say about this incident then don't visit the thread.

[bubbers44]

The pilot made all of the correct decisions. He made a 90 degree right turn over Canada and landed at JFK because of the thump. He did what any other 777 captain would have done. Landing at the nearest suitable airport only is required when you actually lose the engine. Dumping fuel also has to fit into the equation.

[bubbers44]

I don't fault BA for flying across the Atlantic on three engines. The FAA says it is ok so why the problem? Most of our DC10's did fine. Guess I will get blasted for this post.
Oh well, blast.

[the_hawk]

Could you all please answer 2 questions for an arm chair guy who doesn't want to make second guesses. Does anybody know the point / the distance from KJFK where the engine failed / was shut down yet? Haven't seen precise figures until now. And how far would this point have to be away from KJFK (of course in relation to alternates like CYYZ or CYUL or whatever) to make the discussion of a possible wrong decision to go to KJFK valid?

[misd-agin]

Could you all please answer 2 questions for an arm chair guy who doesn't want to make second guesses. Does anybody know the point / the distance from KJFK where the engine failed / was shut down yet? Haven't seen precise figures until now. And how far would this point have to be away from KJFK (of course in relation to alternates like CYYZ or CYUL or whatever) to make the discussion of a possible wrong decision to go to KJFK valid?

Ah, the light of sanity. Absent knowing how far, and how long, the divert took it's impossbile to make a reasonable judgement on the decision to divert to JFK.

North of Montreal and immediate failure or just in upstate NY and gradually onset of problem are completely different scenarios.


Today 04:23bubbers44The pilot made all of the correct decisions. He made a 90 degree right turn over Canada and landed at JFK because of the thump. He did what any other 777 captain would have done. Landing at the nearest suitable airport only is required when you actually lose the engine. Dumping fuel also has to fit into the equation.

The engine did fail. Nearest suitable becomes an issue.

Reading the various statements makes it hard to figure out if the problem, decision to divert, and the resulting engine failure, was reached in a short time (1,2,3 minutes, etc) or if it took place over a long time period(5, 10, 20 minutes). The time factor, combined with actual location, is important in evaluating the decisions made.

No saying that this is the case here but what gets said publically isn't always the same as what get said privately, be it actual events, timeline, or attaboys vs. wrist slaps. ("I didn't have sex with that woman") ;)

[bubbers44]

I just reread the captain's report of what happened. When they diverted north of ALB to JFK at FL350 they had no reason to shut down an engine but conferred with mx and decided to go to JFK because of the thump. Descending for the arrival at FL220 the engine problems started resulting in a shut down. The captain was consistently considering other divert airports but considered JFK his best choice at that time. Very professionally done in my opinion. He landed 15,000 pounds overweight because of time limitations so landing before JFK would have made a heavier landing which must also be considered. Familiarity with an airport and weather also dictate what is the nearest suitable airport.