777 Looses engine, Lands in Cold Bay, AK

TallFlyer

Well-Known Member
From the Associated Press:

A Continental Airlines jet bound for Houston from Tokyo experienced engine trouble over the Pacific Ocean and made an emergency landing early Tuesday morning at Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula.

The twin-engine Boeing 777 carrying 241 passengers and at least 15 crew members, landed just after 4 a.m. at Cold Bay's airport, according to Gordon Bliss, an operations officer with the Federal Aviation Administration. No injuries were reported.

Pilots on Flight 6 received warning of reduced oil pressure in one of the engines and shut it down as a precaution, said Continental spokesman David Messing. Procedure then called for the plane to be diverted to the nearest airport, he said.

"They were having problems with one engine, so they shut that one down and put the plane down before anything got worse," Bliss said.

The flight took off from Tokyo at 3:31 p.m. Japanese time, Messing said. It landed at Cold Bay almost six hours later, at 4:07 a.m. Alaska Daylight Time.

Passengers remained on board for several hours before local residents were able to ferry them in private vehicles to the local school and community center, said Karen Montoya, public affairs officer for the Aleutians East Borough. The small local community rallied around the visitors, bringing them donuts and bottled water. Most of the passengers reportedly do not speak English.

"Cold Bay has a history of taking care of people in this situation," Montoya said. "This is the second time there's been an emergency landing there in three years."

In 2001, Delta Flight 79 from Los Angeles to Tokyo landed with 220 passengers. Cold Bay's 10,000-foot runway, the fifth longest in Alaska, was built by the U.S. military during World War II and can handle large jets. The community of 70 to 90 residents is located almost 650 miles southwest of Anchorage near the tip of the Alaska Peninsula.

A replacement jet was to be flown from New York to pick up the passengers and was expected in Cold Bay on Tuesday afternoon, according to Bliss and Montoya.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The twin-engine Boeing 777 carrying 241 passengers and at least 15 crew members, landed just after 4 a.m. at Cold Bay's airport,

The community of 70 to 90 residents is located almost 650 miles southwest of Anchorage near the tip of the Alaska Peninsula.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Honey, could you go shoot another Moose. We're having company."
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not just the crashes, but the 777s seem to have had a rash of engine problems lately.

[/ QUOTE ]

The engines on the 777 are fairly new and are going through the expected growing pains.

But really engine failures aren't much more common, just twin engine airliners getting stuck in the middle of nowhere.

ETOPS rules require twin engine airliners to head for the nearest suitable airport if they shut down one engine. Regardless of the location, example Midway in the Pacific, Yellowknife in the Yukon, Azores in the Atlantic. No matter how inconvient it will be, it is illeagle for a pilot to pass up a runway that he could physicaly land at. United had to land a 777 at yellowknife, and it was stuck there for over a month while they trucked a new engine to it.

Four or three engine planes can fly past inconvent airports for a better facility. Example, if this had happened on a 747, they could have continued to Anchorage which would have been much easier on everybody.
 
All true, which is why the MD11 is a better aircraft for transpac than the 777. Also, a look at the ETOPs rules and you'll see two things:

1. ETOPs only requires the airline to plan for 15 minutes holding fuel at the ETOPs alternate and no wind consideration;

2. The ETOPs alternate is often what drives the min fuel for departure on an ETOPs aircraft due to the much lower fuel burn with both engines running than after losing 50% of your thrust. A tri or quad can stay up higher after losing an engine, so doesn't burn as much getting to the emergency alternate.

There will be an ETOPs aircraft splash, it's just a matter of time.
 
[ QUOTE ]

There will be an ETOPs aircraft splash, it's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Been any close calls lately? I can't think of any off the top of my head, save the Canadian Airbus that desd-sticked into Lajes in the middle of the night.
 
An ETOPS rated aircraft/airline must maintain hire standards than that of a quad or tri engine
aircraft, all engine incidents are reported to the FAA, if they fall to a certain level, the airline
is then placed on the FAA watch list and if it fall further, the airline could lose their ETOPS
qualifications.

The 777 was could have continued to its original destination, but the regs said that the aircraft had to land. No twin engine aircraft is going to crash anytime soon.
 
[ QUOTE ]
burn as much getting to the emergency alternate.

There will be an ETOPs aircraft splash, it's just a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did a term paper on the 777 compared to the MD-12X in college and my professor asked me about how I felt about ETOPS on twin-engine aircraft.

I pretty much gave him a blank stare!
 
Actually, all of the tri's and quads are being pulled into meeting the same standards (really reporting requirements) as ETOPs, so if that is making any difference (and I doubt it is) then that aspect will be history in the near future.
 
from dictionary.com

1 entry found for looses.
loose Audio pronunciation of "looses" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ls)
adj. loos·er, loos·est

1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.

1 entry found for loses.
lose Audio pronunciation of "loses" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lz)
v. lost, (lôst, lst) los·ing, los·es
v. tr.

1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys.
2.
1. To be deprived of (something one has had): lost her art collection in the fire; lost her job.
2. To be left alone or desolate because of the death of: lost his wife.
3. To be unable to keep alive: a doctor who has lost very few patients.


what is it with people on message boards and spelling loses as looses. If you do a search on here you actually find that it is used quite a few times.
 
Posters are always misspelling things on the boards. Most are typos due to fast typing and not previewing their post, but many aren't. If you read enough posts you will realize this. Posters are constantly misspelling the same words. This leads me to believe they think the word is spelled that way.

I really want to correct them, but then I'd feel bad, unless of course it is Brian J.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is someone making fun of my speling?

grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

no, I'm not makin fun of it, it was more of me just making an observation that so many people misspell that word, not just you ;-)
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, I think just you!
buck.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, you should have told me you were at Merrill watching my landings yesterday....

banghead.gif









grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
All true, which is why the MD11 is a better aircraft for transpac than the 777.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am by no means going to argue with you about the above mentioned comment as your the professional and I'm merely a 180 hr. PPL.

My name is Matthew not Brian J.

But could you explain why you feel the way in which you do? I always thought the 777 a replacement for the MD-11 and DC-10's.

Not only that but doesn't your average run of the mill 777-200 have more range then a MD-10/11?


Matthew
 
Back
Top