Posted on 01/02/2009 5:27:52 PM PST by libh8er
The crew of a United Airlines Boeing 767-300, registration N644UA performing flight UA-938 (dep. Dec 28th) from Chicago O'Hare,IL (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK), reported unspecified mechanical problems while enroute at approx. N5051 W5500 at FL350 and requested to return to Boston,MA (USA), later changed the request to divert to Washington Dulles, DC. The airplane landed safely at Washington International Airport 3:15 hours later.
A replacement Boeing 767-300 N654UA resumed the flight and reached London with a delay of 9 hours.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL938/history/20081229/0332Z/KORD/EGLL
I’m guessing an engine out. If it had been something bad, they would have put down at Gander or Bangor. If they could make it to Dulles, they could have made it to Shannon.
If they had not already passed the point of no return (it’s like the mid-point of the flight) they would go back. If they had passed the point they would continue onward to nearest landing place that could accommodate them.
But the point is that the went past a number of landing sites which could have accommodated them.
Equipment availability and/or repair facilities may have played in a factor in where they eventually landed. (IAD is a United hub).
>>If they had not already passed the point of no return
That sounds like something from a ‘50s movie. Let’s try the “Equal Time Point” instead.
ETOPS - Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim
Sooner or later everybody lands at Bangor. KBGR
>>I’m guessing an engine out. If it had been something bad. . .<<
Well. . .I’d say anytime you lose an engine it is bad.
Anytime you lose an engine and all you have left is one engine, you have a major bad problem.
Lost an engine once myself, I was flying an A-10 when the number two engine decided to $hit itself. Flying on one engine was no problem, but nonetheless I elected to land at an RAF base. . . just to be safe. Home was about 15nm further, mere minutes, but how do you explain to the mishap board that you overflew a good runway when you already lost one engine (for an undetermined reason), and lose the other engine for the same (undetermined reason). I’m not much of a gambler when all you can win is a few extra minutes of flight time, and what you can lose is, at best, the jet, and at worse, your life.
Given the unknown nature of the incident, I’d be more inclined to think it was a problem of a less serious nature. Of course, with British Airways electing to fly a 747 from LAX to LHR a year or so ago, after the jet lost an engine on takeoff, one never knows about the judgment these days.
Over the ocean it's more like ETOPD - Engines Turn Or Passengers Drink.
sea water
In BA’s defense, they still had a couple of spare engines.
Yep. One of the longest runways on the East Coast, and very little to hit in the event of disaster.
I've actually paid money to land there on purpose several times. Easiest no-hassle airport in America.
And given that the cause of the failure was unknown, that they didn't know for certain that the other engine on the same side may have experienced damage due to the failure, let alone the jet body itself or flight control surfaces may have suffered some sort of damage, and there is always the possibility that the unknown situation that caused the first failure would eventually manifest itself in the other engines, and let's not forget the fact that the jet didn't have enough fuel to get to LHR and had to land in Ireland, and (worst of all), given the fact the decision to continue was based upon the potential cost to lodge the passengers while another jet was found, in my opinion, I'd say BA made some very poor decisions. They were very lucky that all that happened was a short landing,
But that's just me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.