AA1134 LAX-LHR Loses Engine, Diverts to JFK

[Dream Land]

Engine Fails On Plane Carrying 253 People

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...

[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]

Well lets see!

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"

now where did I put my glasses?

[tilewood]

Originally Posted by Jet II

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

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]

tough audience

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/A...352Z/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.


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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by zlin77

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.