Philippine Airlines flight to Manila makes emergency landing in Los Angeles

[webfact]

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)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[stevenl]

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

[Scot123]

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

[KhunBENQ]

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.

[KhunBENQ]

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.

[KhunBENQ]

Fortunately no panic on board:

 

[MeePeeMai]

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

[Almer]

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 

[Isaanbiker]

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. 

[MeePeeMai]

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).

[GinBoy2]

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

[KhunBENQ]

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.

[MeePeeMai]

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.

 

 

[GinBoy2]

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

[MeePeeMai]

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? 

[GinBoy2]

35 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

 

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? 

Well firstly, if you were capable of reading English, the "oxygen cylindered birds" reference wasn't mine, it was part of quoted text, so maybe read more carefully.

 

Secondly, you don't understand how two engine aircraft are certified for trans oceanic flight.

 

Each aircraft type is certified by the time they can fly on one engine to the nearest diversion airport in minutes, hence they are ETOPS 180, 240, 333 etc.

 

Therefore, if you understood English and what the heck you were talking about, no aircraft that flies across the Pacific is ever outside of their ETOP's category to a diversion airport.

 

Every flight plan, and I see every day aircraft releases that I give to the Capt, that specify their fuel, load plan and their diversion airfields along the designated flight plan

[MeePeeMai]

10 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well firstly, if you were capable of reading English, the "oxygen cylindered birds" reference wasn't mine, it was part of quoted text, so maybe read more carefully.

 

Secondly, you don't understand how two engine aircraft are certified for trans oceanic flight.

 

Each aircraft type is certified by the time they can fly on one engine to the nearest diversion airport in minutes, hence they are ETOPS 180, 240, 333 etc.

 

Therefore, if you understood English and what the heck you were talking about, no aircraft that flies across the Pacific is ever outside of their ETOP's category to a diversion airport.

 

Every flight plan, and I see every day aircraft releases that I give to the Capt, that specify their fuel, load plan and their diversion airfields along the designated flight plan

 

1.  Firstly, please point out the reference to the oxygen cylindered birds in the article that was posted here in this thread as I have read it many times and failed to see any mention of these phantom birds wearing oxygen bottles and masks.

 

2.  Secondly, I am aware of the certification process for trans oceanic flights as my father retired as an American Airlines Captain (after 37 years on the job) and flew DFW to HNL on a DC-10 for many years. We have discussed this on many occasions and though I am not a flight engineer (as you seem to be), I am aware enough to understand the general requirements and that safety is always paramount in this process.

 

3.  Thirdly, (as you might say) I simply stated that I would rather not be on ANY aircraft (flying over the biggest ocean in the world) with only one engine functioning.  I never said it would be a fatal event or that the aircraft is not capable to complete it's journey etc... just that it is not ideal to be in that situation or on any such flight which encounters such a predicament.

 

You are excused now junior, get back to your room and finish your bong hit.

[GinBoy2]

14 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

 

1.  Firstly, please point out the reference to the oxygen cylindered birds in the article that was posted here in this thread as I have read it many times and failed to see any mention of these phantom birds wearing oxygen bottles and masks.

 

2.  Secondly, I am aware of the certification process for trans oceanic flights as my father retired as an American Airlines Captain (after 37 years on the job) and flew DFW to HNL on a DC-10 for many years. We have discussed this on many occasions and though I am not a flight engineer (as you seem to be), I am aware enough to understand the general requirements and that safety is always paramount in this process.

 

3.  Thirdly, (as you might say) I simply stated that I would rather not be on ANY aircraft (flying over the biggest ocean in the world) with only one engine functioning.  I never said it would be a fatal event or that the aircraft is not capable to complete it's journey etc... just that it is not ideal to be in that situation or on any such flight which encounters such a predicament.

 

You are excused now junior, get back to your room and finish your bong hit.

Check out post #8 in this thread, and I will accept your apology!

 

...a post btw which you liked, so if short term memory loss is a problem, maybe you are the one who should be quitting the bong hits!

 

[nauseus]

The basics from PAL:

https://www.philippineairlines.com/en/aboutus/newsandevents/palstatementonpr113laxmnlflight

 

They turned straight around and made an emergency landing:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr113#22ecff9f

 

Good job. Too early to confirm cause but the intermittent flashes of flame are characteristic of a bird stike.

 

 

THAI had a major engine problem last month (probably different) and the 777 take-off to Zurich was aborted at BKK.

 

 

[MeePeeMai]

35 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Check out post #8 in this thread, and I will accept your apology!

 

...a post btw which you liked, so if short term memory loss is a problem, maybe you are the one who should be quitting the bong hits!

 

Apology given for connecting you to the oxygen cylindered birds. 

 

I put down the bong about 40 years ago, maybe that's my problem?

[GinBoy2]

2 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Apology given for connecting you to the oxygen cylindered birds. 

 

I put down the bong about 40 years ago, maybe that's my problem?

Apology accepted

[GinBoy2]

54 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The basics from PAL:

https://www.philippineairlines.com/en/aboutus/newsandevents/palstatementonpr113laxmnlflight

 

They turned straight around and made an emergency landing:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/pr113#22ecff9f

 

Good job. Too early to confirm cause but the intermittent flashes of flame are characteristic of a bird stike.

 

 

THAI had a major engine problem last month (probably different) and the 777 take-off to Zurich was aborted at BKK.

 

 

Like I said before, engine fires are not that uncommon.

 

A Jet Engine as reliable as it is, will and does experience failure, be it through Foreign Object Damage or internal mechanical failure.

 

It's rarely catastrophic so long as the failure is contained within the nacelle.

 

Once the nacelle is compromised and you get debris damaging the wing structure thats when things get serious, and super scary

 

This was a mhhh, kinda event.

 

The pilots on QF32, where the engine exploded, ripping parts of the wing apart!

 

That was truly scary and a testament to awesome piloting skills

[nauseus]

40 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Like I said before, engine fires are not that uncommon.

 

A Jet Engine as reliable as it is, will and does experience failure, be it through Foreign Object Damage or internal mechanical failure.

 

It's rarely catastrophic so long as the failure is contained within the nacelle.

 

Once the nacelle is compromised and you get debris damaging the wing structure thats when things get serious, and super scary

 

This was a mhhh, kinda event.

 

The pilots on QF32, where the engine exploded, ripping parts of the wing apart!

 

That was truly scary and a testament to awesome piloting skills

I didn't read what you said before but I must disagree, in that I would say that fires are very uncommon.  

[moe666]

23 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 

Not at 38,000ft just took off

[MeePeeMai]

2 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

 

...a post btw which you liked, so if short term memory loss is a problem, maybe you are the one who should be quitting the bong hits!

 

Correction, a post which I clicked "confused" (not liked).

 

Cheers!

[GinBoy2]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I didn't read what you said before but I must disagree, in that I would say that fires are very uncommon.  

They're really not, depending on your definition of 'common'

 

I work for Delta and probably I see one or two engine fires a year.

 

Thing is most of the time they're not serious, fire suppression puts the out and it's just a maintenance issue.

 

 I see it mainly on mainline aircraft opposed to the regional jets for whatever reason

[Captain Monday]

6 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

 

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.

 

 

Nope, not bird strike.

Compressor stall, 100%.

Bird strike could be a cause I guess so could other things.

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

They're really not, depending on your definition of 'common'

 

I work for Delta and probably I see one or two engine fires a year.

 

Thing is most of the time they're not serious, fire suppression puts the out and it's just a maintenance issue.

 

 I see it mainly on mainline aircraft opposed to the regional jets for whatever reason

I just found a list of Delta's recorded incidents for 2018 - quite a resume - just as well your fires aren't serious - most of the time. 

[GinBoy2]

15 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Nope, not bird strike.

Compressor stall, 100%.

Birds strike could be a cause I guess so could other things.

You're right, compressor failure, FOD, or some other internal failure are all possible.

 

It doesn't say what power plant it was, so it could be the GE, PW or RR engine.

 

Which ever it was I'm assuming they are al over this

[rabas]

Listen. Live air traffic control tower communications with PAL113. PAL113 reports "compressor surge" at 1:20 in the recording.

 

https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15665.0;attach=10555

 

Bird strikes can cause compressor surging. Compressor surges are not considered engine fires.

 

The basic cause of compressor surge is fairly simple , each blade in an axial flow compressor is a miniature airplane wing which , when subjected to a higher angle of attack , will stall just as an airplane stalls. Surge may define as results from an unstable air condition within the compressor.

https://www.thaitechnics.com/engine/engine_construction.html