ANA 767 Engine fire on T/O out of NRT
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANA 767 Engine fire on T/O out of NRT
Seems like the guys did a good job of securing it & getting the a/c back on the ground-
Does anyone know what donkeys ANA have on their 767's? Would be interesting if it was a CF-6 and even more interesting if it was one of those affected by the AD that resulted from the AA 767 engine self-destruct in LAX.
4HP
An All Nippon Airways plane made an emergency landing at Tokyo's Narita airport on Thursday after one of its twin engines caught fire shortly after takeoff on a flight to China, officials said. None of the 133 people on board the Boeing 767-300 were injured and the plane returned safely to the airport, said Michiko Sugimoto, an ANA spokesperson in Narita. The airport closed a runway for about 20 minutes while the plane was being towed, she said. The plane had taken off from Narita for Xiamen on China's southeastern coast. "The pilot heard thumps and felt mild jolts 100 metres after takeoff and flight instruments indicated an abnormality," Sugimoto said. "An air controller also reported seeing flames coming from the left engine at the time." The engine was stopped a minute after takeoff. "We are investigating the cause of the engine trouble," she said.
4HP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few bangs and flashes could have been something as mundane as just a compressor stall. It need not follow that it is related to the AD on the CF6 variants concerning failures such as that AA 767 that went bang.
When you get pretty fireworks the press do tend to dramatize it. Compressor stalls are serious enough but not in the same league as an uncontained failure.
When you get pretty fireworks the press do tend to dramatize it. Compressor stalls are serious enough but not in the same league as an uncontained failure.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regardless of what happened, in the case of the 767, coming back to land was probably the right choice...close to mx, closest airport, and who knows if the captains was thinking of the LAX B767/AA failure, and a few more in the past.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subject to weight and height constraints, nearest may be too close to lose height safely, or there may be a requirement to dump fuel. In this case height wasn't an issue, but weight could have been. Even then, if you're overweight it might still be better to get on the ground in a controlled manner and break the aircraft than hit a bit faster and break the pax.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah - fair enough.
I didn't phrase my post very carefully.
The nearest that you can safely land at.
But certainly when you are just minutes after take off, you are pretty likely to be returning to the same strip unless longer tarmac and better emergency cover is at another venue nearby.
The story sounds a bit like the United (?) 767 which had an engine failure on t/o or climb-out from AMS in the last 2 years, with spectacular photos capturing it before it returned a few minutes later.
I didn't phrase my post very carefully.
The nearest that you can safely land at.
But certainly when you are just minutes after take off, you are pretty likely to be returning to the same strip unless longer tarmac and better emergency cover is at another venue nearby.
The story sounds a bit like the United (?) 767 which had an engine failure on t/o or climb-out from AMS in the last 2 years, with spectacular photos capturing it before it returned a few minutes later.
