Posted on 09/05/2025 6:22:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
United flight 1996 from Chicago O’Hare to San Juan was delayed three hours when the captain spilled coffee in the cockpit. The Airbus A321neo was already taxiing out when this happened, and had to return to the gate.
That delayed the return flight from San Juan back to Chicago O’Hare by nearly three hours as well. Spilling much more than a little bit in the cockpit would certainly have cancelled the flight. Not only does the spill need to be cleaned, but whatever was spilled on needs to be inspected as well.
Coffee is especially bad because it’s hot, acidic, and often has sugar and cream which can leave a sticky residue. That could mean inspecting:
Control panels & switches: The center pedestal (throttles, ENG START, radio tuning units, ECAM control panel) and overhead panel are exposed. Any spill on them requires drying, cleaning and functional checks.
-Avionics / electrical systems: The avionics bay is directly below the cockpit floor on an Airbus A321. Liquids can seep through gaps around the pedestal and drip onto avionics racks.
-Flight control levers: (throttle, flaps, spoilers, gear) Coffee into the throttle quadrant or flap lever area would require inspection.
-Circuit breakers & wiring bundles: I think that the A321neo has breaker panels along the sidewalls? Some pilot and mechanic readers can confirm.
-Sidestick controllers: Airbus has sidesticks on the side consoles, which also have storage and cupholders. A spill there could drip into the sidestick base.
Airlines typically require a mechanic to open the affected panel, clean it, dry it, and sometimes run functional checks before release. Depending on where it landed, it might even trigger a requirement to replace switches or modules.
Pilots routinely drink coffee or water in the cockpit, even during taxi. The sterile cockpit rule applies below 10,000 feet (taxi, takeoff, landing), but that governs conversation and tasks not essential to flight, not drinking. Handling a beverage is normal. The unusual part is the spill, especially one that reaches sensitive avionics or controls.
The risks here aren’t theoretical. In 2019, a Condor Airbus A330 from Frankfurt to Cancun diverted when the captain spilled coffee on their audio control panel, which overheated, smoked, and led to the failure of the first officer’s audio control paenl as well. This led to a safety recommendation of lidded cups and the use of cupholders.
In 2011, a United Boeing 777 from Chicago O’Hare to Frankfurt accidentally squawked 7500 and 7600 (hijack and lost communications) after coffee spilled on the pedestal and the pilots were dealing with communication and navigation issues. The flight diverted to Toronto.
We’ve also seen multiple Airbus A350 incidents, such as Delta diverting to Fairbanks in January 2020 after coffee spills on the engine start panel preceded in-flight engine shutdowns.
It occurs to me that there’s one benefit to American Airlines never improving its onboard coffee (they still use Fresh Brew – which was derided at United as Fresh Poo before they replaced theirs with the excellent Illy). You’ll have fewer pilots at American drinking the airline’s coffee in the cockpit. That’s great for ops! On the other hand, it also means more flight delays as pilots stop at Starbucks in the terminal rather than rely on what’s served onboard.
Coffee isn’t even the strangest reason why United had to delay or cancel Airbus A321neo flights. When they first received the planes the no smoking signs did not turn off, by design and United forgot to ask for a regulatory exemption because smoking hasn’t been allowed onboard in decades.
“A hospital? What is it??”
what aircraft is that? It looks like something retired before I ever flew.
At least he didn’t spill hot coffee on his crotch.
Should this not raise the question if these modern aircraft aren’t too sensitive?
No coffee and make sure the pilot didn’t eat fish.
I was curious too.
AI Overview
Fate Is the Hunter (1964) - IMDb
The aircraft featured in the 1964 film Fate Is the Hunter is not a real jet but a fictional, heavily modified Douglas DC-7, altered to resemble a contemporary jet airliner. To achieve this look, its propeller wings were reversed and removed, a Boeing 707 nose cone and a similar tail-mounted antenna were added, and false nacelles housed simulated jet engines.
Key details about the aircraft
Donor Aircraft:
A Douglas DC-7 propeller airliner was the basis for the fictional jet.
Modifications:
The original propeller wings were removed and reversed.
A Boeing 707 nose cone was added.
Nacelles were created to house simulated jet engines.
A Boeing 707-style HF antenna was added to the tail.
Purpose:
These modifications were made to create the appearance of a modern jet for the film’s plot, as the actual DC-7 was a propeller-driven aircraft.
Fictional Name:
The aircraft was given the fictional name “Blue Ribbon” and belonged to the non-existent “Consolidated Airways”.
Thanks. Now I know why I couldn’t place it!
They are because an aircraft is just a bunch of part hanging together out of habit.
They aren't because despite everything we have less crashes per air miles traveled then we used to.
How long before people start blaming Boeing, even though all the cases listed were on Airbus aircraft.
I think they have the formula pretty much down pat when it comes to many of the design aspects that would cause a problem may that be the airframe, engines, landing gear, materials (albeit composites scare me and I think in the future we’ll see some issues as these materials fatigue)...
But IMHO, it’s the avionics that’s the weak spot today.
The stuff is all different and requires folks to learn it / little standardization. It is often not intuitive. It’s environmentally sensitive. It expires (data goes obsolete)...
I’m a big believer in the KISS principal.
When I was at Boeing, one issue that drove people crazy was integrating with the avionics system. There are a number of different avionics manufacturers around the world and of course each international customer that had such a manufacturer in their country would demand that we use those avionics instead of one that was more commonly used.
That’s right.
I had the lasagna.
When SNL was great.
Maybe a no-spill coffee cup of some sort is in order? It could save lots of time and money.
or they could mandate coffee sippy-cups for all pilots ...
From what I gather, it's any drink (even water getting into electronics) that would have had the same result. The solution is obvious: Sippy cups. :-)
😃😃😁🤣🤣🤣😛😜
BYU flight school is about to expand.
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.