A Lineas Aereas Suramericanas plane had to return and make an emergency landing in Bogota, Colombia, on March 28th.
The Boeing 727-200 plane took off for Leticia, Colombia, but had to return shortly afterwards due to a hydraulic failure.
The plane landed safely. All passengers and crew members remained unharmed.
Alaska Airlines flight 601 made a hard landing at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, Washington, on May 18.
The Boeing 737, coming from Las Vegas, Nevada, was about to land at Sea-Tac Airport when the crew of another plane that was lined up behind it reported fire, sparks and smoke from its left main landing gear.
Landing was delayed until emergency services arrived at the scene. The airline confirmed that two left tires of the aircraft blew upon landing, erupting sparks.
All 173 passengers aboard remained unharmed.
A mobile stairway was brought at the scene to safely disembark passengers and crew.
The incident is being investigated.
Royal Brunei Airlines flight BI-684 had to return and make an emergency landing at Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Manila, Philippines, on October 21.
The Boeing 787-800, en-route to Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, had to return after its left engine failed. The crew had to shut the engine down mid-air.
The plane landed safely.
All 152 passengers aboard remained safe.
What: Homebuilt Europa en route from Gillespie Field
Where: Route 67 in Santee
When: July 21, 2012
Who: Pilot
Why: When his engine locked up in a turn after taking off from Gillespie Field, pilot Wayne Oehler of El Cajon made an emergency landing on to the freeway near Riverton road. A California Highway Patrol officer saw the plane in distress and flying low, and cleared the road.
Thomson Airlines flight BY-2616 had to divert and make an emergency landing at Gatwick Airport, England, on July 8th.
The Boeing 757-200 flying from Manchester, England, to Girona, Spain, had to divert due to smoke in its cabin.
The plane landed safely.
All 201 passengers and 8 crew members remained unhurt.
Lufthansa flight LH-278 had to return for an emergency landing in Frankfurt, Germany, on October 12th.
The Airbus A319-100 plane took off for Milan Linate Airport, Italy, but had to turn back due to an unusual odor on-board.
The plane landed safely. All one hundred and thirteen passengers and five crew members remained unharmed.
EVERETT, Wash., Nov. 24, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing (NYSE: BA) is developing minor design changes to power distribution panels on the 787 and updates to the systems software that manages and protects power distribution on the airplane. These changes come as the result of what has been learned from the investigation of an onboard electrical fire on a test airplane, ZA002, earlier this month in Laredo, Texas.
“We have successfully simulated key aspects of the onboard event in our laboratory and are moving forward with developing design fixes,” said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. “Boeing is developing a plan to enable a return to 787 flight test activities and will present it to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as soon as it is complete.”
Engineers have determined that the fault began as either a short circuit or an electrical arc in the P100 power distribution panel, most likely caused by the presence of foreign debris. The design changes will improve the protection within the panel. Software changes also will be implemented to further improve fault protection.
The P100 panel is one of five major power distribution panels on the 787. It receives power from the left engine and distributes it to an array of systems.
The 787 team is now assessing the time required to complete the design changes and software updates that are being developed. A revised 787 program schedule is expected to be finalized in the next few weeks.
“Our team is focused on developing these changes and moving forward with the flight test program,” said Fancher. “The team in Laredo is also well along in preparing to return ZA002 to Seattle.”
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this report may be “forward-looking” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “believes,” “estimates,” “targets,” “anticipates,” and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions about future events that may not prove to be accurate. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak to events only as of the date they are made and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by federal securities laws. Specific factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements we make regarding our guidance relating to future financial and operating performance, the effect of economic conditions in the United States and globally, and general industry conditions as they may impact us or our customers, as well as the other important factors disclosed previously and from time to time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
