United Airlines Jet Diverts to Canada After Engine Issue-UPDATE
United Airlines Boeing 757
A United Airlines Boeing 757 jet flying from Washington Dulles Airport (IAD) bound for London’s Heathrow Airport Sunday night had to divert for an emergency landing in Newfoundland, Canada after an apparent loss of altitude engine issue.
United Flight 130 left Washington Dulles at 7:20 PM EDT and was about 2 hours in to its trip to Heathrow when pilots diverted back to St. John’s Airport in Newfoundland.
A passenger aboard the flight, Ellie Cauldwell, said it felt like the plane had a sudden drop of altitude according to ‘The Mail Online’:
‘The plane dropped and it felt like being on a ferry when it goes up and down,’ she said.
‘Most of the cabin crew were running up the aisles and we were not told anything for a while.
‘We could tell from the on-screen maps that we had lost height – from around 40,000ft to 20,000ft – and that we had turned round.
“We gathered there was something wrong with one of the engines.’
Reports say the 757 dropped from 40,000 feet to 20,000 feet but United has not given a reason as to the problem…only that they diverted and landed safely in Canada.
Passengers were accommodated on other flights.
UPDATE:
Airnation.net reached out to United for a comment. United told us that they performed a “gradual descent from cruise altitude as indicated in SOPs.” There was no sudden drop in altitude.
Category: Airnation
Hi All:
Unfortunately I knew this would happen and it is going to get even worse as the airlines rush to get approval to fly TWO ENGINE jet service on long over water routes
Just remember this recommendation from me. If anyone is to fly on extended over water routes to Europe or Asia, make sure the airline is using four engine equipment. It maybe a little more expensive, but two engine ops is unsafe.
The link will give everyone an idea what this is about. it is about EXTENDED OPERATIONS ETOPS
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/etopseropsenroutealt.pdf
The FAA in there own infinite wisdom has recently approved regulations that allowing two engine jets to be five hours and 30 minutes from a safe airport of landing. In the past the rule was three hours, which ruled out the smaller two engine jets like the Boeing 757 to be used on these routes.
The in flight failures that are reported here routinely should be a warning the the skies we fly are getting more dangerous.
As soon as the carnage starts like two or three fully loaded airlines disappearing in the ocean, then, the FAA will back up apologize and rescind the new rule get out their hat and cane and do a tap dance!
Richard Wyeroski, former FAA Safety Inspector
FAA WHISTLEBLOWERS ALLIANCE MEMBER
They’re approving a “5 and a half hour” distance max from a nearest airport for twin engined planes?? No twin engine plane can “glide” for 5.5 hours even if it were at 40k feet! 5.5 hours for a normal flight is from the west to east coast of the US! And this doesn’t even account for a plane needing to “turn” to the airport in the event of an incident.
There was never any intent in ETOPS requring a glide from engine failure to the nearest suitable airport!! Unbelivable! ETOPS dispatch is predicated upon weather, alternates, destination minima, points of equal time, engine reliability history and many other mitigating factors such as back up systems such as APU generators, back up generators on the 777 etc to determine what will be flown on each flight. I never recall glide ratio being a dtermining factor in overwater flying. If it is please show us the source document.
Chris “#2″,
When did anyone indicate that ETOPS ratings were based on “glide ratios” of aircraft? Do you even read our comments before belittling them? And can you change your “name” on here? I wouldn’t want anyone to confuse your rants with anything i might say.
When the Social Hangar launches it’ll sync up with the commenting here too. So you’ll have to register when you either comment here or post on the forums but you’ll have your own unique ID/name.
Oh awesome! Is it still on schedule???
Chris:
A twin engine jet is a safe aircraft. However, if the aircraft has an engine failure over water, as did this flight. It becomes a serous emergency. The aircraft because of it’s weight will descend to altitude it can maintain flight. This is called “DRIFT DOWN”
The new 5 hour and thirty minute rule means the aircraft is now authorized to fly for that time on the remaining engine. This is where the danger lies. Flying on one engine and at a lower altitude is a “RISK” not worth the money the airline saves. This “WAS” the prime reason twin engine jet could not be used on long distance over water flights.
Do we lose 250 lives because the aircraft drifts down into bad weather or the remaining engine has a problem also?
My opinion is it is like playing “RUSSIAN ROULETTE”
Richard Wyeroski
I agree! This is why Boeing decided on 3 engines for their 727, as at the time twin jets weren’t allowed on atlantic flights.
5.5 hours is still too long for a twin jet. I can’t imagine any plane without engine thrust making it that long. All i can think about is AirTransat 236 and Air Canada 143. In the first case, they had been asked to deviate from their original flight plan several miles to the south. If they had been on their original flight plan, they never would have made it to land.
The two of you have lost your minds…
rescind triple sevens that will never stop
flying that distance… Come on wake up!
Scott, i agree there’s nothing anyone can do about it- but you have to admit there’s an issue here. If both engines were to quit at the same time (this would be nothing new for the 777, noting the BA 777 crash landing at Heathrow) in the middle of the ocean, being 5.5 hours out from land isn’t going to be good enough. In the case of the A330 AirTransat incident where the plane ran out of fuel over the ocean, if they hadn’t deviated from their assigned flight plan they would have crashed in the ocean.
This is another example of cheapo UAL trying to cut costs and then it comes back and bites them in the butt
Really appalled at the mixing of “apples and oranges” in this discussion thread. The Air Transat incident had nothing to do with 2 engine ETOPS-pilot mismanagement of the fuel leak in one tank led to the dual engine flameout-if they were flying a B52 with 8 engines screwing up fuel irregular procedures would lead to the same outcome……
As for the viability of twin engine ETOPS, it’s here to stay and won’t go back to 4 engine ops…..Boeing cooked its own goose with point-to-point mmarketing on twin engine aircraft and seeking 5 hour single engine operating certification for its new generation jets such as the 787. The airlines, financially, can’t make the case for four engine commercial viabilty-the Airbus 350 XWB is slated to repalce the 747-400 on long haul flights from the US to Australia – Boeing is having a hard time selling its new 800 variant because of high operating costs by comparison to its new generation 787 and proposed revamped 777 aircraft. All in all, the safety record of twins flying long haul is unquestioned as evidenced by the number of operations and relatively low number of diversions. Engines are far more reliable than ever before, so equating the 3 engine 727 (which was never desigened or ever did fly routine Atlantic crossings due to severely limited range)with new generation 767, 757, A330 etc is a false argument based on invective. Try finding carriers that fly 4 engine ops routinely on medium haul operations such as the Atlantic. With the exception of a few companie like Virgin, Lufthansa, BA, (usually to the West Coast for long range fuel capability), the preponderance is 2 engine flights. Enough said.
Actually, they arrived at a tri-jet design for the 727 because several airlines wanted overseas capabilities. At the time a twinjet was not permitted to fly over the ocean. They had airlines demanding four engines for transatlantic capabilities, others demanding two engines for economy purposes, and so Boeing built it with three. A much better solution than allowing twin-jets to cross with only one back-up engine if the primary were to fail.
The discussion of AirTransat has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion as it represents a failure of both engines of a twin-jet over water. We can clearly see the glide path of the jet, and the incident illustrates what would happen when a twin-jet looses both engines out in the middle of the water. Whether a jet looses both engines because the crew mishandles a fuel leak or whether the engines fail by volcanic ash or mad maintenance: the fact remains, twin-jets have only 2 engines and that’s HALF the redundancy that a quad-jet would have. Do you get it now?
Chris-
Hopefully soon. We’re waiting on one vital modification (photo and video section to be completed). Once that’s done we’ll start beta testing. :)