View Full Version : Possible bird strike UA840 SYD to LA turnback
mickjoebill
4th Jul 2016, 04:30
http://dailym.ai/29cyv3F
United press release says it was "possible bird strike."
But reported as bird hitting a wing, causing smoke to pour out and requiring an emergency landing.
Above, video of the "smoke" pouring out:)
Mickjoebill
United Airlines flight UA840 bound for Los Angeles makes emergency landing in Sydney | Daily Mail Online (http://dailym.ai/29cyv3F)
United press release says it was "possible bird strike."
But reported as bird hitting a wing, causing smoke to pour out and requiring an emergency landing.
Above, video of the "smoke" pouring out:)
Mickjoebill
looks more like an fuel dump for whatever reason ???
obviously had to dump fuel to land- but why is still unknown - bird strike on wing ??? Uhhhhh
capt.cynical
4th Jul 2016, 05:07
Bimbo journalism at its best !:ugh:
Neither fuel nor smoke.
Chem trails!
Dean
Chem trails!
Yup, hit the wrong switch; should only be done at night. Tea without biscuits at the CIA for them!
The link below is to a fuel dump by a B777 and it looks very similar to the situation described at the beginning of the thread. I reckon it is a fuel dump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlaUOEa2UGY
Coochycool
4th Jul 2016, 23:12
Of course it's a fuel dump. That'll be why the big jets have a pipe sticking out of the wing trailing edge :rolleyes:
Fuelled for Trans-Pacific flight (presumably this flight stops over at Honolulu?) so above max landing weight for return to Sydney.
If you watch the following video from the first link it claims they lost an engine due to bird strike. Unclear how far into the flight they were but that's a long way to go on one engine. ETOPS probably made the decision for the crew.
Lancair70
4th Jul 2016, 23:46
FFS the media could do with checking facts but hey, its a story, who gives a rats if we get the details correct. Kinda surprised it wasn't called a Cessna Jumbo.
It was a 787-9, not a 777.
Ive recently seen an A-380 clearly labelled a Boeing Airbus 380A lately. LOL
ETOPS probably made the decision for the crew.Yep Engines Turn or Passengers Swim applies on LONG overwater routes- and that is one of the longest probably Sydney to LAX
"Ive recently seen an A-380 clearly labelled a Boeing Airbus 380A lately. LOL"
You want a really belly buster?
Popular Mechanics Magazine had an article published while the A380 was under development and stated that it would be the first aircraft with a 1.3 billion pound max takeoff weight !!! Yes BILLION !
Oakape
5th Jul 2016, 04:35
I see that the headline has been changed in the article from 'smoke' to 'fuel'.
From further down the original article -
The plane landed safety after dumping its fuel, which was captured on video by passengers, and no one was injured.
So they were onto it at the beginning, but didn't know. Do they read & comprehend their stuff before they publish?
FFS the media could do with checking facts but hey, its a story, who gives a rats if we get the details correct.
SNAFU as far as the media is concerned.
Lonewolf_50
5th Jul 2016, 13:12
Yup, hit the wrong switch; should only be done at night. Tea without biscuits at the CIA for them! Just to update you: once DHS was created, they took that function over. :cool: They don't even know what tea is. It's coffee and doughnuts that they won't serve. :eek:
On topic: looks like the crew and procedures fit the situation just fine, so ... a story about things working out correctly when something went wrong. Good news, albeit a delay in travel for the passengers.
evansb
5th Jul 2016, 16:33
Popular Mechanics admitted to the typographical error and subsequently published a correction. A not unusual 'B' for an 'M' error.
A Science channel on TV consistently refers to the A380 as the first double-decker airliner. Not true of course, but they have yet to correct the misstatement.