ITYT Travel Forums  

Go Back   ITYT Travel Forums > Travel Companies & Programs > Airlines & Frequent Flier Programs > AirTran Airways (FL)
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2004, 08:30 PM   #1
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
AirTran flight from MCO diverts to RDU after smelling smoke

Quote:
An AirTran flight that departed from Orlando International Airport Friday was forced to make an emergency landing while on its way to Philadelphia.

The aircraft landed safely at Raleigh-Durham International Airport in North Carolina after the pilot reported smelling smoke in the cockpit, WESH NewsChannel 2 reported.
Full (Limited) Story
__________________

dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 05:45 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
The Sky is Falling!

Hey chicken little, as everybody already knows these things do happen:

Quote:
Continental Flight Makes Emergency Landing In Alaska
Jet Bound For Houston From Tokyo Experience Engine Trouble


POSTED: 11:32 am CDT October 20, 2004
UPDATED: 11:41 am CDT October 20, 2004

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A Continental Airlines jet bound for Houston from Tokyo experienced engine trouble and was forced to make an emergency landing Tuesday in Cold Bay.

Flight 6, a two-engine Boeing 777 carrying 241 passengers and at least 15 crewmembers, landed just after 4 a.m. at Cold Bay's airport, according to Gordon Bliss, an operations officer with the Federal Aviation Administration. No injuries were reported.

"They were having problems with one engine, so they shut that one down and put the plane down before anything got worse," Bliss said.

Continental spokesman David Messing said pilots on the flight received warning of reduced oil pressure in one of the engines, which was shut down as a precaution. Procedure then called for the plane to be diverted to the nearest airport, he said.

Cold Bay is a community of 95 located 642 miles southwest of Anchorag.

The passengers were being taken to Cold Bay's community center and school and were brought food and drink by residents, said Karen Montoya, public affairs officer for the Aleutians East Borough.

A replacement jet was to be flown from New York to pick up the passengers, Bliss said.

The flight took off from Tokyo at 3:31 p.m., Messing said. It landed at Cold Bay at 4:07 a.m. Alaska time.

Cold Bay has a 10,000-foot runway capable of landing large jets. It was built by the military during World War II and is the fifth-largest runway in the state, Montoya said.

In 2001, Delta Flight 79 carrying 220 passengers and crew from Los Angeles to Tokyo also made an emergency landing at Cold Bay.

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
__________________

haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 05:55 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Ooops!

Not even the first time this year a Continental 777 flying Tokyo-Houston had an emergency landing. Interestingly enough, it was an engine spewing oil. Wonder if it was the same engine on the same aircraft that caused both emergency landings. Well now, that would represent a pattern wouldn't it? Uh oh, Continental

Quote:
LATEST NEWS
January 8, 2004
Continental emergency landing: how passengers reacted
Some people were scared and others found it an entertaining diversion when Continental Airlines Flight 6, bound from Tokyo to Houston, was forced to land at Midway atoll this week.


The Houston Chronicle interviewed some of the 279 passengers (44 more than the airline originally said) on their return to Texas about the episode that occurred Tuesday in the middle of the Pacific.

Passengers told the newspaper that oil was "spewing" from an engine as the Boeing 777 landed on Midway's comparatively short runway. They were not able to get off the plane for hours because a ladder had to be found, one passenger said.

The Chronicle was told, however, that passengers were allowed to tour the Midway Atoll wildlife refuge, an experience many of them enjoyed a lot.

Midway airport is scheduled for closure at the end of this month. But with airports already closed at Wake atoll and Johnston atoll, the U.S. Department of Transportation is asking Congress for funds to keep the Midway field open so airlines have an emergency landing location.



2004 American City Business Journals Inc.
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 06:25 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Orlando/Philadelphia

Speaking of diverted flights out of Orlando. Coincidentally, Continental's emergency landing was in Philadelphia

Quote:
Jetliner Makes Emergency Landing
October 12, 2004 A jetliner made an emergency landing Tuesday night at Philadelphia International Airport.
Continental Airlines flight 36 was bound from Orlando to Newark, New Jersey when it developed engine trouble.

The pilot landed safely and none of the 148 passengers onboard was hurt.

(Copyright 2004 by Action News. All Rights Reserved.)
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 06:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Warning!

Boy, now I would just flat out avoid Continental Airline's Houston/Tokyo route altogether after reading this one. What started out as a jab at dbaker on my part does appear to have turned into a pattern of very dangerous engine problems on that particular Continental route. Three times in a single year, mind you! It's O.K. though dbaker, these things do happen. But I'd avoid Continental's Houston/Tokyo route at all costs if I were you

This from a frequent flier's review of Continental Airlines on the epinions.com message board. This particular frequent flier is from dbaker's hometown of Austin TX nonetheless. Apparently that makes you an expert

Quote:
..."For those looking for my worst experience, it was Houston-Tokyo in 2003. We took off on time on a packed plane for a 13 hour flight. As we took off, it smelled a bit like burned wires but that soon dissipated. 90 minutes later, over Amarillo, we turned back to Houston because of the burning smell, all the while being assured that there was no danger. When I looked out the window, long trails of smoke were emanating from the wings. I rang the call button three times to ask about this before someone came. I was told it was normal. Condensation, vapor, or other type of congealed humidity. I was positive it was not as that type of moisture goes OVER the wings, not OUT OF them! I was pretty panicked. The captain later came on and said that they were dumping fuel as the plane would otherwise be "too heavy" to land back in Houston. Heavy? Damn! That same plane got off the ground with all that weight so how could it not land minus at least 180 minutes worth of fuel? Anyway, the flight attendant came back and asked if I "felt better" now that the captain told us what was really going on. Well, I didn't feel better because the attendant had earlier lied to me about the smoke emanating from the wings. She was not amused. So... back safely in Houston. We were put on another plane and despite this rather harrowing experience, the captain came on to tell us to thank the cabin crew for staying around as they could simply have gone home given the now 3 hour delay. That, to me, was a bit of a slap in the face as I, too, could have just gone home given the "fire", the smoke, the emergency landing, etc. Anyway... it gets better. Once in the air, the plane was not catered for 13 hours of flight so we were served a cup of instant noodles on take off and then nothing until 11 hours later. When I protested 8 hours into the flight that I was hungry, I was told that I was not and they went to "look for" a sandwich. They found one and then told me that I was a complainer. The crew sat in the back of the plane, not offering water, or anything, acting rather above it all. On landing in Tokyo - 6 hours late (given the minor "fire" of course) - the crew actually asked us to thank them... wow, was I piqued"...
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 07:21 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Don't Mention It!

Glad I could be of help, dbaker. Any time you need to put the whole story out there, you just let me know
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2004, 10:38 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21
Man...this CAL passenger cracks me up.
"How can plane take off and not be able to land due to weight?"

Very simple. If anyone cares, all airplanes are designed to take off at a lot higher weight then they can land at. Landing is simply more demanding on a landing gear assembly than a takeoff. AirTran 717 takeoff weight is 120,000 and landing is 104,000. In wide body jets that spread is a lot wider because of all that fuel they burn in cruise. So in order to make an emergency landing shortly after take off a fuel dump is installed on those airplanes. It dumps fuel into the atmosphere in a form of a fine mist. It evaporates very quickly prior to reaching ground. Now 717 is certified to land at 110,000, however AirTran didn't pay for that option since landings over 104,000 are never required. Airplane can still land over weight in an emergency situation, in which maintenance personnel will simply inspect the landing gear.
trs717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 12:25 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Just to set the record straight. This plane in RDU ther was never smoke or burning. Here is what happened. A galley trashcan was repaired with PRC. This is the stuff used to seal fuel tanks, the prc hadn't set up all the way and was emiiting vapors this is what the crew smelled, and for saftey landed in rdu..
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 12:52 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Its passengers like the one on the CAL flight that think they know what their talking about that spread bad info. If the wings were collecting vapor then the trail would come out the bottom of the wings not the top, but since the Capt said that they were dumping fuel then that explains it coming "out" the wing tip. TRS717 explained the landing weight info perfectly, and B717mech already explained the 717 galley smell.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 01:08 PM   #10
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
I have many times taken CO6/7, NRT-IAH/IAH-NRT and it is my preferred route to Asia. I was on CO7 IAH-NRT the day that the aircraft serving the route diverted in January (earlier that morning) on the way back from NRT. Since that is the function of ETOPS, it wasn't a large issue although my flight to NRT was late due to the late arrival at IAH of the replacement aircraft, so I missed my connection at NRT as a result.

If you check even more carefully, this is not the 2nd time this year that CO6/7 diverted but the 3rd. The same aircraft returned to IAH after losing oil pressure in an engine although I'm not sure if it's the same one that was repaired in Midway. It definitely is interesting and brings question to ETOPS, but the discussion is more relevant for another forum and using it as a distraction from the AirTran issue is apparent.

As far as the passenger who didn't know about MGTOW/MGLW/etc I think it's pathetic and ridiculous to mock him. I'm sure there's plenty of things that he knows about that you don't and we can hope that he'd be more respectful in sharing things without "cracking up."
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 02:07 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaker
As far as the passenger who didn't know about MGTOW/MGLW/etc I think it's pathetic and ridiculous to mock him. I'm sure there's plenty of things that he knows about that you don't and we can hope that he'd be more respectful in sharing things without "cracking up."
I agree. That's why when I'm told by a professional like dentist, mechanic, architect, etc. (in that case CAL Capt.) what is going on, I don't second guess their expertise based on my own assessment of satiation.
That is why this passenger "cracks me up."
trs717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 02:19 PM   #12
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by trs717
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaker
As far as the passenger who didn't know about MGTOW/MGLW/etc I think it's pathetic and ridiculous to mock him. I'm sure there's plenty of things that he knows about that you don't and we can hope that he'd be more respectful in sharing things without "cracking up."
I agree. That's why when I'm told by a professional like dentist, mechanic, architect, etc. (in that case CAL Capt.) what is going on, I don't second guess their expertise based on my own assessment of satiation.
That is why this passenger "cracks me up."
So if you dentist said you needed some procedure and you said, "why? my teeth feel fine," it'd be OK for him/her to laugh at you?
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 02:46 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: OAK/SFO/SJC
Posts: 24
Send a message via MSN to ithisk
Classic thread. So far, only one reply has been about the AirTran incident. The rest have been deflecting by trying to point out problems at other airlines, not to mention mocking customers. It's only a matter of time before someone blames Boeing or tries to eliminate blame entirely.
ithisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 03:14 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaker
So if you dentist said you needed some procedure and you said, "why? my teeth feel fine," it'd be OK for him/her to laugh at you?
That was my point, and you missed it again. I wouldn't tell my dentist that my teeth feel fine, because he knows better what kind of treatment they need, and I don't have 10 (or however many) years of dental school to make the diagnosis on the status of my teeth simply based on how I feel.

I might look for second opinion...but I wouldn't (like the above passenger) bash my dentist on internet based on what I think.

The point is that this person couldn't understand how a plane can takeoff and not be able to land with 180 minutes less fuel. Sounds logical...But not the case. The problem is (particular in aviation) that there is a lot more involved than common sense. Unfortunately people often misinterpret what they see and treat an honest explanation as a lie, again due to lack of knowledge.

You, dbaker seem to have a pretty good grasp on aviation, which surprises me the most, that you continue to argue that AirTran is unsafe. (we're back on topic, ithisk. Are you happy now?) I honestly don't even think that you believe in that yourself and just refuse to admit it here. And If I'm wrong about you, then you are not as intelligent of a person as I give you credit for.
trs717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 05:03 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Classic Thread Indeed

Quote:
Originally Posted by ithisk
Classic thread. So far, only one reply has been about the AirTran incident. The rest have been deflecting by trying to point out problems at other airlines, not to mention mocking customers. It's only a matter of time before someone blames Boeing or tries to eliminate blame entirely.
You're exactly right about this being a classic thread: dbaker reprises his well-worn Chicken Little role and claims the sky is falling just because an AirTran pilot smells a sealant and diverts a flight (nice to know that AirTran pilots are that cautious and attentive to safety though isn't it?). Then he turns around and claims that an actual emergency onboard his beloved Continental (an engine shutdown over the Pacific Ocean) "wasn't a large issue." Three times in one year, mind you. If recurring engine problems on the same CAL route over the Pacific Ocean aren't a "large issue", how is an AirTran diversion due to a "smell"? What's really surprising is that you fail to see right through that agenda, ithisk

And what's really "pathetic and ridiculous" is dbaker's sensationalism of a diverted AirTran flight due to a smell, while in the same thread claiming a serious and recurring engine problem on a Continental 777 isn't an issue. Wake up people, this isn't exactly rocket surgery. The blatant agenda is once again crystal clear

Speaking of "deflection" ithisk, that message board entry posted by a CAL frequent flier from Austin was intended to show yet another emergency CAL landing in addition to those other two I had already mentioned. Not some opportunity to critique passengers' feelings on the matter and some mechanics' treatment of them. Guess if dbaker had "check[ed] even more carefully" he would've realized that post refers to the aforementioned 3rd incident in one year that he claims I overlooked
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2004, 07:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
This just goes to show you how Dbaker is....We havent heard from him in months and in these months of silence AirTran has had many, many positive things happen. Do you think that Baker would post these positive things on a travel site in a forum that is devoted to AirTran? No! All other airline sites have positive info pertaining to them. Not AirTran though. Baker just sits back and scans the web for negative info and when he finds it then you will be sure to hear from him. Saying that this is a web site devoted to balanced info on airlines is like saying CNN isnt all about the democrats. As for Ithisk all he is a "YES" boy for Dbaker.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2004, 11:28 AM   #17
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Re: Classic Thread Indeed

Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
You're exactly right about this being a classic thread: dbaker reprises his well-worn Chicken Little role and claims the sky is falling just because an AirTran pilot smells a sealant and diverts a flight
I made no assertions about what happened or suggested that the sky was falling. You're just creating all that in your mind. Anyone reading this thread is going to think you're insane if you read what I said and your responses to what I allegedly said and implied.

Quote:
Then he turns around and claims that an actual emergency onboard his beloved Continental (an engine shutdown over the Pacific Ocean) "wasn't a large issue." Three times in one year, mind you. If recurring engine problems on the same CAL route over the Pacific Ocean aren't a "large issue",
That's not what I said at all -- I actually said the opposite. I'm sort of at a loss for a reply besides asking you to re-read what I said. I indicated that the first in-flight shutdown wasn't a "big issue" but that having multiple is interesting and "brings question to ETOPS."

Quote:
And what's really "pathetic and ridiculous" is dbaker's sensationalism of a diverted AirTran flight due to a smell, while in the same thread claiming a serious and recurring engine problem on a Continental 777 isn't an issue. Wake up people, this isn't exactly rocket surgery. The blatant agenda is once again crystal clear
Sensationalism? What did I say about it?

The most that I ever said about it is describing it as an "AirTran incident" -- which it is.

Quote:
Guess if dbaker had "check[ed] even more carefully" he would've realized that post refers to the aforementioned 3rd incident in one year that he claims I overlooked
Your consumer complaint was 2003, which would make last year which is the event you overlooked was the second (of three) events this year.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2004, 11:07 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
PuuuuLEASE!

Ohhhhhh dear, do you really think all these people are that naive?
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2004, 03:29 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: YYC
Posts: 12
Haze, can you please tell me what "rocket surgury" is? I'm sort of naive and have no idea.
NiGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2004, 11:54 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 18
ithisk, the reason we have to bring up the fact that the same incidents happen at other carriers. Is because the owners of this site are biased. Every Airline has inflight emergencies. We declare emergencies with air traffic in order to recieve expedited handling to the airport. If we smell something or hear something it is better to follow this proceedure. Because the first question the FAA will ask is "Captain why did'nt you declare an emergency"? the down side is that the media hears about it and shows up with a drama queen looking for the top lead in story to the 6 o'clock news and proceeds to do exactly what dbaker does here. Example : On the home page for this web site there is a picture of a DC-9 and the caption " A DC-9 after an uncontained engine failure". Nobody got hurt, but the exact same thing happend to Delta in pensacola, FL in 94 and 2 people were killed. Alaska Airlines was convicted of disregarding manufactures reccommended proceedures which was directly responsible for the crash of an MD-80 in 2000 that killed everybody on board. They admitted that they were tring to cut cost. American Airlines pushed the wrong button and flew a plane in to a mountain in 95. Accidents are just that, accidents. The reason I bring these facts up is because other airlines have been shown to have acted negligently but somehow AirTran is the only airline singled out. Listening to dbaker is like watching Peter Arnet on CNN, because we all know he gave us the real truth from bagdad.
__________________

717driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0