Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/04/2025 9:47:33 AM PDT by Red Badger
Anxiety-inducing audio captured a United Airlines pilot calling “Mayday” when one of its engines failed moments after taking off for a trans-Atlantic flight.
“Failure, engine failure, left engine,” the pilots of United Flight 108 radioed air traffic controllers as it departed from Washington Dulles International Airport on July 25.
“Declaring an emergency. Mayday, mayday, mayday,” the pilot added.
Flight 108 departed from the DC airport just before 6 p.m. that Friday to begin a nearly eight-hour flight across the ocean to Munich, Germany.
But mere moments after becoming airborne, the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s engine cut out as it reached about 10,000 feet, according to audio obtained by the flight tracker You can see ATC.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I know that. I just try not to remember it when I'm checking in....
And I don't get when Boeing gets blamed for something they are not responsible for. NM is right. Probably United's maintenance. Also could have been a bird strike.
The knee-jerk Boeing trashing is like blaming Chevy when your Firestone tire blows out.
Dump on Boeing when it's an airframe failure.
I am also interested as to why the engine failed.
My question is: "Does the FADEC have authority to shut an engine down if certain criteria is met?
For example if the aircraft is above 10,000 feet, the airspeed is at or above best single engine cruise speed, and the other engine is operating with no malfunctions, can the FADEC shut the engine down without pilot input?
My guess is no.
Zeepers are like that...
That’ll make one to start to carry a extra shorts in your packet a OMG and a brown alert is to much fear to hold back.
= the probable reason they are reluctant to divulge details, eh?
You would think for the sake of fellow PILOTS and flight attendants, they’d WANT Boeing to be HELD accountable or its OWN sake!
“Things like a turn would often lead to a spin”
The first thing pilots seem to totally forget when they’ve low and in trouble.
In this case, the correct entity is United Airlines.
Why do you want to hold the wrong entity accountable?
The Bowing 737 Max crashes are due to two things.
1. Bad computer software and that is on Boeing.
2. Piss poor pilots on third world airlines. First World airines encountered the same problem but recovered control of the aircraft.
This engine out failure has nothing to do with Boeing, it is not their engine.
Boeing structural and mechanical failures in general make each airline’s jobs that much tougher.
The computer software exists to make up for a fundamental flaw in the ENGINE placement and its gravitational pull. (re: 737 max)m
Airlines and pilots were not properly notified and trained to manage this structural FLAW.
There shouldn’t be a need for MCAS software if the engine placement made the planes structurally sound in the first place!
Blahblahblah ...
This incident has nothing to do with Boeing’s alleged structural and mechanical failures.
BOEING DIDN’T MAKE THE ENGINE.
You know that, right?
You’re not doing yourself any favors, here.
From what I read, these modern "heavy" aircraft can actually land at full take off weight if necessary. If they do, that requires a lengthy inspection process on top of their original problem. Dumping some fuel likely made the maintenance department and bean counters happy..
Are you on Boeing’s payroll or something? Why so defensive of your CEO masters? I get it, you could care less about the 737 Maxes of 2019 because oh, not American.
Meanwhile, some Alaska Airlines flight attendants are suing Boeing. And rightfully so!
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/08/02/four-alaska-airlines-flight-attendants-sues-boeing/
OK.
Two points:
1) You can always land ... you just might not like the results. A modern jetliner, such as a B-787, with a full load of fuel can take off at a heavier weight than it should land. Such was the case with this aircraft. I agree that landing whilst overweight is inadvisable.
2) Since first posting, I have learned that the B-787 can dump fuel. Not all jetliners have this capability. My point here is that the aircraft flew around for 30 minutes on one engine, while above maximum (approved) landing weight. That is a testimony to the good design and construction of the aircraft.
Why are you so resistant to acknowledging the truth?
Are you on the Airbus payroll? Tupolev? Sukhoi? COMAC? See ... I can play that game, too.
You simply cannot deny that:
1) The engine was made by someone other than Boeing.
2) The aircraft was maintained by someone other than Boeing.
Yet you irrationally want to blame Boeing.
I listened to the ATC audio linked at the NY post website article. The flight crew was pretty darn sharp and professional. They have to run checklists for engine failure.
Dulles ATC was on the ball as well...
A number of years ago a woman took off from the Knox County (Maine) airport on what seemed like a nice, clear day. Soon after take off she passed over the coastline and ran into a fog bank. Became disoriented and spun in. My father in law knew her and she was a fairly experienced pilot.
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.