Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Philippine Airlines flight to Manila makes emergency landing in Los Angeles

Recommended Posts

Philippine Airlines flight to Manila makes emergency landing in Los Angeles

 

A Boeing 777 bound for Manila suffered an apparent engine failure Thursday shortly after takeoff and made an emergency landing in Los Angeles, the FAA said. User generated video captures the plane with flames and smoke coming out of the right engine.

 

(Reuters) - A Philippine Airlines flight bound for Manila suffered an apparent engine failure on Thursday shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles and made an emergency landing, authorities said.

 

Pilots of Flight 113 declared an emergency and reported a possible engine failure on the Boeing Co 777, Los Angeles International Airport said. A witness on the ground described "bursts of flames" coming out of an engine.

 

There were no immediate reports of injuries, and it was unclear how many people were aboard the plane.

 

The Federal Aviation Administration said the plane returned and landed without incident. Television station ABC-7 in Los Angeles aired video of the plane after takeoff that showed flames and smoke coming out of the right engine.

 

The plane landed around 12 p.m. local time (2000 GMT) and was met by the Los Angeles Fire Department, the airport said. There has been no impact on other flights.

 

Boeing and General Electric, which makes the GE90 engine for the 777 twin-aisle jetliner, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The cause of the apparent engine failure was not immediately clear.

 

"You saw bursts of flames, little flames shooting out from the engine," said Andrew Ames, a 36-year-old fitness professional in Los Angeles, who watched as the plane ascended over the ocean after takeoff. "It almost looked like backfire flames from a motorcycle or car."

 

"I had never seen a plane spew flames repeatedly. Then it stopped. As soon as it stopped, I saw the plane bank left, like it was heading back to airport," Ames said.

 

While the cause of the apparent engine failure was not immediately clear, it comes as Boeing faces intense scrutiny over twin deadly crashes involving its 737 MAX single-aisle jetliner. The 737 MAX has been grounded worldwide since March.

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Rosalba O'Brien)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from the report it seems unlikely there is any connection with the 737 debacle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another airline struck of the list. I hope it is inspected and service records checked. Mind you the ink will probably still be wet. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, webfact said:

I had never seen a plane spew flames repeatedly.

Me too as an eye witness.

But multiple such on the net.

Bird strike most likely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scot123 said:

Another airline struck of the list. I hope it is inspected and service records checked. Mind you the ink will probably still be wet. 

Don't draw early conclusions.

Google for bird strike and struck all affected from your list.

Edited by KhunBENQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing that didn't happen over the Pacific Ocean half way between Honolulu and Manila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

It's a good thing that didn't happen over the Pacific Ocean half way between Honolulu and Manila.

If its a bird strike there are few birds at 38.000 feet, and if there were a flock of oxygen cylindered birds going  for gold up there the 777 is quite capable of a long one engine stink, fine aircraft indeed 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cause of the apparent engine failure was not immediately clear.

 

 

Easy to see. Right engine caught fire. Crew must have switched it off and landed with one. 

Edited by Isaanbiker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Almer said:

If its a bird strike there are few birds at 38.000 feet, and if there were a flock of oxygen cylindered birds going  for gold up there the 777 is quite capable of a long one engine stink, fine aircraft indeed 

I failed to see them mention any birds or a possible bird strike in the original story.  I get that there are no birds (or "oxygen cylindered birds") at 38,000 feet but a mechanical failure is always a possibility and given that the 777 is a fine aircraft, it would mean that they would have to complete the flight with just one working engine. 

 

Of course, this should not be a problem but I might have some concerns being a thousand miles or so from the nearest airport (on just a single engine... on any aircraft).

Edited by MeePeeMai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MeePeeMai said:

I failed to see them mention any birds or a possible bird strike in the original story.  I get that there are no birds (or "oxygen cylindered birds") at 38,000 feet but a mechanical failure is always a possibility and given that the 777 is a fine aircraft, it would mean that they would have to complete the flight with just one working engine. 

 

Of course, this should not be a problem but I might have some concerns being a thousand miles or so from the nearest airport (on just a single engine... on any aircraft).

The fact that the report says 'shortly after takeoff' probably means that it was as fairly low altitude, where a birdstrike is more likely.

 

This wasn't, as reported an uncontrolled explosion, where the engine cowling had been compromised, as with the Qantas A380 in Changi on the RR Trent 900. 

 

Obviously we have to wait until the report, but it sounds to me like a typical birdstrike, or some other FOD event

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Almer said:

If its a bird strike there are few birds at 38.000 feet, and if there were a flock of oxygen cylindered birds going  for gold up there the 777 is quite capable of a long one engine stink, fine aircraft indeed 

Did you care to read and understand the incident?

38000 feer at initial climb???

Plane never exceeded 5000 feet.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cf94f2d&opt=0

https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAL113/history/20191121/1925Z/KLAX/RPLL

 

My bird strike idea is speculation as any other idea.

There is no update about the investigation that I can find.

Edited by KhunBENQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

The fact that the report says 'shortly after takeoff' probably means that it was as fairly low altitude, where a birdstrike is more likely.

 

This wasn't, as reported an uncontrolled explosion, where the engine cowling had been compromised, as with the Qantas A380 in Changi on the RR Trent 900. 

 

Obviously we have to wait until the report, but it sounds to me like a typical birdstrike, or some other FOD event

 

Oil pump failure, fuel leak etc.  There are many possibilities here. and though I do agree that a bird strike is one of them, I don't think that a bird strike usually causes an engine fire such as this one.

 

 

Edited by MeePeeMai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

I failed to see them mention any birds or a possible bird strike in the original story.  I get that there are no birds (or "oxygen cylindered birds") at 38,000 feet but a mechanical failure is always a possibility and given that the 777 is a fine aircraft, it would mean that they would have to complete the flight with just one working engine. 

 

Of course, this should not be a problem but I might have some concerns being a thousand miles or so from the nearest airport (on just a single engine... on any aircraft).

Even then, it probably wouldn't been fatal.

 

Since this wasn't an uncontained failure, the fire suppression system would have extinguished it eventually.

 

If the report is correct and it was a 773 not a 77W, I think the 773 has a ETOPS 240 designation which would have easily got it to the nearest diversion airport even in the middle of the Pacific on one working engine.

 

Engine fires aren't as uncommon as people would think. They only get really nasty when as in QF32 when the engine exploded rupturing the nacelle which in turn caused damage to the wing structure

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Even then, it probably wouldn't been fatal.

 

Since this wasn't an uncontained failure, the fire suppression system would have extinguished it eventually.

 

If the report is correct and it was a 773 not a 77W, I think the 773 has a ETOPS 240 designation which would have easily got it to the nearest diversion airport even in the middle of the Pacific on one working engine.

 

Engine fires aren't as uncommon as people would think. They only get really nasty when as in QF32 when the engine exploded rupturing the nacelle which in turn caused damage to the wing structure

 

It is pretty apparent that either you did not read my post (to which you replied) or you are incapable of comprehending plain English.

 

It is common knowledge that each engine on a commercial jet has a fire suppression system (and that they usually do the job quite well).  It is also common knowledge that in case of a catastrophic engine failure or fire (on any aircraft), the standard procedure is to declare and emergency and get emergency clearance to land at the nearest airport (with sufficient runway and emergency services etc. etc).  Is there any doubt as to why this is?

 

My point being that this aircraft has only two engines, vs a DC-10 with three or a 747 with four etc. and would be aloft  for a considerable distance over the Pacific ocean with no airport or alternatives should their last (and only) engine have problems or fail....

 

Hence my statement " Of course, this should not be a problem but I might have some concerns being a thousand miles or so from the nearest airport (on just a single engine... on any aircraft)."

 

And "oxygen cylindered birds???  <deleted>?   What have you been smoking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...