Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Marian Musil
What: Air Canada Jazz de Havilland Dash 8-100 en route from from Toronto to London Canada
Where: Toronto
When: Sep 23rd 2009
Why: Immediately after takeoff, the left engine had to be shut down. The flight returned to Toronto and landed eleven minutes after takeoff.
Click to view large photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Oleg Chaplin
What: Vladivostok Tupolev TU-204-300from Vladivostok to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Russia
Where: Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
When: Sep 21st 2009
Who: 95 passengers and 5 crew
Why: On approach to Sakhalinsk, the flight underwent a “switch-off” of the right engine, but landed safely.
__________
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Siegi N.
What: Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 en route from Frankfurt to New York JFK,NY
Where: southwest of Iceland
When: Sep 19th 2009
Who: 334 passengers
Why: After finding an oil leak over Iceland, the plane returned to Frankfurt; an alternative flight was provided for passengers who arrived in NY after a delay of less than 10 hours.
_________
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Von Wedelstaedt
What: Egyptair Boeing 777-200 en route from London to Cairo
Where: near London
When: Sep 23rd 2009
Who: 234 passengers
Why: Due to an undisclosed technical failure, the flight returned to Heathrow. The flight was cancelled and passengers were provided accommodations.
__________
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Maciej Klatt
What: SAS Scandinavian Airlines Boeing 737-600 en route from Dusseldorf to Stockholm
Where: Dusseldorf
When: Sep 22nd 2009
Why: The flight reported engine problems after takeoff. Passengers were rebooked on other flights. Unverified passenger quotations posted on the Aviation Safety net indicate the crew may have known ahead of time there were issues; and they were attempting to fly the plane back to its base for repairs.
_________
George’s Point of View
It’s all about maintenance, doesn’t matter your nationality.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Klaus Ecker
What: American Airlines Boeing 737-800 en route from Dallas to Seattle,WA
Where: Dallas
When: Sep 22nd 2009
Who: 95 passengers
Why: While en route, a hydraulic system malfunctioned and the flight was forced to return to Dallas.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Jason Bisson
What: United Airlines Boeing 757-200 en route from Los Angeles Washington DC
Where: United Airlines B752
When: Sep 8th 2009
Who: 177 passengers
Why: Prior to landing at Dulles, the plane’s “fasten seat belt” sign flashed. The plane experienced turbulence; the turbulence was severe enough that galley carts fell over and spewed drinks on passengers, and a passenger was caught by turbulence coming from the bathroom, where she was flung about the plane, sustaining enough injury that on landing she was sent to the hospital for examination.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Daniel Werner
What: American Airlines Boeing 757-200 en route from Miami to Boston
Where: Miami
When: Thurs September 17, 2009
Who: 168 passengers and six crew
Why: After take-off, a bomb threat note was found on board. The plane returned to Miami where it was investigated. No bomb or explosives were found.
George’s Point of View
Ladies and Gentlemen of the aviation world, please consider this and bear with me as I traipse off into the world of conjecture.
It is a mere day after someone left a note in the bathroom of the above-mentioned plane, and already that fact has been picked up by all the news services. An unsigned, unattributed note that could have been written by anyone on board, for all we know on toilet paper written in lipstick, by anyone from someone hoping to miss a dental appointment, to employees wanting the flight cancelled so they could go take their fatigued selves home to bed. And the threat made the news.
Even the whisper of bomb threats make the news.
So when I read now, months after the fact that there was an Air France bomb threat on a completely untraceable and unverifiable phone call on May 27 prior to the Air France flight 447 crash, I hear with very skeptical ears.
If you followed the coverage after the crash, you’ll be aware of how many ears were pinned to the ground, listening for every hint of possible news. The media hounds pretty much sniffed out every findable trace of even faintly related information and posted it repeatedly, echoing across the internet and print media like (if you will pardon the cliché) ripples in a pond. So this leaves me two choices of thought regarding how to consider the tidbit of a so-called Air France bomb threat.
1. It’s not true.
2. It’s true but somehow remained unbroadcast in spite of the ravenous appetite for news coverage of everything Air France/Air France flight 447 related.1 is the end of the line for that thought process.
2…well, we can think about a little. If it is true, where has that little nugget of information been? Why hasn’t a bomb threat listed in an obscure Indian blog in June become big news regarding the Air France crash?THis brings me to two more conclusions:
1. it was true and that fact was suppressed.
2. it is a rumor.1. If it is true and the fact was suppressed, then that’s a very bad thing; the only ones who would suppress such a news item would be someone who would be hurt by Air France’s business being damaged, namely Air France.
If it is a rumor, then why would anyone spread such a rumor? Who would profit from the rumor? I only think of maybe two or three possibilities offhand. Any party fearing to be held responsible for the crash could float just such a rumor. OR any unscrupulous journalist, or media glutton with an appetite for attention of any kind. A paranoiac (or a writer) who sees plots or the possibilities of plots, without regard to reality. Or anyone in a competitive travel industry who might get a couple of extra travelers if a few borderline fliers turned their back on the convenience of air travel.
Now I am not saying any of this is true; I am just saying that I am skeptical about the rumors of a threat to a different flight BEFORE the Air France Flight 447 crash coming out as a new development in news months after the crash.
I’m just saying.
Pictured: An Air Canada Airbus A319 in flight
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Nino Buda
What: Air Canada Airbus A319-100 en route from Calgary to Toronto
Where: Winnipeg
When: Thursday Sept 17 12:03 pm
Who: 121 passengers
Why: While en route, the pilot experienced problems with the left engine and had an indicator light indicating further problems. After declaring an emergency situation, the pilot idled the left engine, and landed safely in Winnipeg a little over half an hour after declaring an emergency.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Bernd Sturm
What: ContactAir Fokker 100/Lufthansa en route from from Berlin Tegel to Stuttgart
Where: Stuttgart
When: Sep 14th 2009
Who: 73 passengers including Franz Muentefering and 5 crew (6 injury/issues)
Why:
Update:
According to news releases quoting Lufthansa, the Stuttgart emergency landing on Sept. 14 was “probably caused by a valve part that came loose and blocked the landing gear’s hydraulic system.”
“Part of a valve came loose internally and blocked a hydraulic line…It worked like a stopper.”
George’s Point of View
Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. It’s a 14 year old plane. Should I repeat “maintenance” 14 times? It’s not as if the plane were self-aware and could tighten or replace its own valves.
The plane’s last inspection was in August, prior to Contact Air acquiring the plane. Even if Contact Air is not legally required to perform a post-purchase inspection, it seems like it would be a reasonable thing for a new owner to do.
If this were a used car purchase, would we take it for an inspection with our own mechanics, and to get tags?
See archives:
Pictured: A Kingfisher Airlines Airbus
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Steve Brimley
What: Kingfisher Airlines Airbus A320-200 en route from Mumbai to Bangalore
Where: Mumbai
When: Sep 15th 2009
Who: 98 passengers
Why: Shortly after takeoff from Mumbai, the gear failed to retract. The plane returned to the airport for a safe landing, where passengers debarked–also safely–to board alternative transportation.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Bernd Sturm
What: ContactAir Fokker 100/Lufthansa en route from from Berlin Tegel to Stuttgart
Where: Stuttgart
When: Sep 14th 2009
Who: 73 passengers including Franz Muentefering and 5 crew (6 injury/issues)
Why: After lowering the gear on approach to Stuttgart, the plane indicated an unsafe gear indication. The main gear would not lower; and after a holding pattern and attempts to resolve the issue, the plane made a belly landing on foam. Passengers debarked via slides.
Franz Muentefering, chairman of Germany’s Social Democratic Party was on board, en route to an election rally.
Five passengers were treated for shock, one flight attendant was hospitalized, but only one passenger was injured.
Video in German
George’s Point of View
Fast food.
Maybe you don’t ever go to a drive through, but I admit, sometimes in my life, I have. I make no excuses for it. But there is one time that sticks in my brain.
I was at an undesignated drive through in an undesignated city, and I pulled up to make my undesignated order, and after 2 seconds of talking to a speaker, realized I was being quizzed by a recording. Although it was working perfectly and in English, we didn’t speak the same language. And to make it even more aggravating, this is one of those driveways it is impossible to exit until the end. So I was forced to wait all the way around; and when I did, I did not get food; but I did make a formal complaint, which I followed through both indoors and in a letter to the undesignated franchise. Maybe it’s stupid, but I felt offended; and I did not return to that particular franchise until that impersonal protocol was removed.
And this was just fast food. My life was not at immediate risk.
Recordings don’t cut it. Sometimes you JUST NEED PEOPLE to communicate.
I’m betting that there are some French Aer Lingus passengers who feel the same way. Friday, somebody in the cabin of an Aer Lingus Dublin to Paris flight pushed the wrong button and subjected the French passengers to the wrong pre-recorded message…the emergency landing message. This put them all in fear of their lives. That same pain and suffering people feel when they’re actually about to crash–that’s what these French passengers were going through. The non-French were fine, since they didn’t get that message that they were about to crash.
I’ve been on planes that made emergency landings and in both instances we heard directly from a live human in the flight deck who explained the problem and urged us not to worry.
Where do they come off with stupid recordings like this? The airline should refund the full fare to these passengers for the grief they unnecessarily went through, even if only for a few minutes and airline operator should be happy they got off that cheaply.
There’s no excuse.
What: Colgan Air /US Airways Saab SF-340B en route from Hyannis to Nantucket
Where: Hyannis
When: Sep 10th 2009
Who: 3 crew on board
Why: The crew reported a problem with the engine compressor and returned to the airport
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Tom Turner
What: Colgan Air Saab 340B
Where: Washington Dulles
When: Sep 7th 2009
Who: 20 passengers and 3 crew
Why: The flight rejected takeoff when a warning light came on in the cockpit. The flight was cancelled while maintenance repaired (presumably) a sensor.
George’s Point of View
There is no indication that both incidents were the same plane; but that Chicago plane doesn’t much look like a UA plane, does it? So, 2 different planes and both times maintenance to the rescue. But then we should rethink this…maintenance needs to try to catch this stuff before take-off. Has Colgan Air cut its maintenance budget lately?
Pictured: A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Chris Heaton
What: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700 en route from Phoenix to Burbank
Where: LAX
When: Sep 8th 2009
Why: When a problem with the wing flaps was detected, the flight diverted from Burbank to LAX to take advantage of the longer runways.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Miguel Nobrega
What: Aer Lingus Airbus A320-200 en route from Dublin to London
Where: Dublin
When: Sep 9th 2009
Who: 120 passengers
Why: 25 minutes into the flight, the plane indicated a hydraulics problem. The flight crew returned to London where mechanics confirmed the hydraulic problem. The landing was safe, with no reported injuries.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Thomas Ernst
What: An Air India Airbus A330-200 flight en route from Tokyo Narita to Delhi
Where: Delhi
When: Sep 10th 2009 4:55
Who: 122 people on board 111 passengers and 11 crew
Why: The pilot made a precautionary landing in Delhi when ten minutes prior to scheduled landing he had faulty readings of the plane’s hydraulics. The plane landed safely 25 minutes later, and was taxied safely. No injuries were reported.
George’s Point of View
No follow-up yet on this hydraulics issue. Was it the instrumentation? Was there a leak caused by lack of maintenance or too many flight hours squeezed in between maintenance checks? I’m sure Air India passengers would like to know.
What: Delta Boeing 767-300 en route from Atlanta to Paris, France.
Where: GSP Airport
When: September 10, 2009
Who: h 213 passengers and 11 crew
Why: Nearly an hour into the flight, the plane had problems with the on board generator. The plane landed at GSP airport without event, and passengers debarked at 2:30 am. No injuries were reported; fire and emergency crews were on standby.
George’s Point of View
This is a generator. Why is this something the pilot lucked into in mid-flight? This is what maintenance crews are for. When do they get serviced, only after they stop working?
What: Delta Boeing 757 en route from Atlanta
Where: Tampa International Airport.
When: 09/07/2009
Who: 150 passengers and crew
Why: The pilot reported a fuel problem prior to making a safe landing at TIA. Fire crews were waiting, but the flight landed without further incident.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Olaf Juergensmeier
What: Jetblue Embraer ERJ-190 en route from Orlando Nassau
Where: Nassau
When: Sep 3rd 2009
Who: 89 passengers and 4 crew
Why: The plane incurred a fire in the left engine on landing. Fire crews put out the fire; and passengers safely debarked. (Not necessarily in that order.)
What: Jetblue Embraer ERJ-190 en route to Austin,TX
Where: Orlando
When: Sep 1st 2009
Why: Fifteen minutes into the flight, the right engine developed a bleed air leak which caused the cabin to lose pressure
What: Jetblue Embraer ERJ-190 en route to Rochester
Where: JFK Airport
When: Monday Sept 7 2009
Why: The flight diverted to JFK when the plane filled with fumes
George’s Point of View
Bad week for Jet Blue. (Or a good week, considering 3 incidents, no injuries.)
Please note that the hijackers have been taken into custody and the crew is no longer being held hostage.
What: AeroMexico Boeing 737 en route from Cancun Mexico was hijacked in Mexico on Wednesday and flown to the Mexican capital,
Where: Mexico City
When: Sept 9 2009
Who: all of the 112 American, French, and Mexican passengers and crew got off the plane. Five suspects have caught on film handcuffed being escorted into custody; up to 8 are being detained.
Why: Hijackers threatened to blow the plane up unless they were allowed to speak to President Felipe Calderon. No bomb was on board
The hijackers are Bolivian citizens.
Passengers debarked with their carryon luggage. Some passengers were unaware they’d been hijacked until they arrived and saw police. Others indicate the pilot had made an announcement that they were being hijacked. The hijackers were never able to enter the cockpit.
What: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300 en route from Orlando,FL to Denver,CO
Where: Tampa
When: Sep 7th 2009
Who: 129 (124 passengers and 5 crew)
Why: After the smoke indicator lights indicated the possibility of smoke, and smoke in the cabin was confirmed by fire crews, the flight landed in Tampa and passengers debarked via emergency slides (which caused a few minor injuries.) However a Southwest spokesperson denied there was smoke, and claimed that the emergency landing was a precaution. But passengers reported a strong smell of smoke, and that the fire alarm had gone off in the lavatory.
George’s Point of View
Hmm. Someone smoking in the bathroom?
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Erezms
What: El Al 747-400 flight traveling from Tel Aviv to New York
Where: Keflavik Iceland
When: Aug 25th 2009
Who: 371 passengers
Why: When the smell of smoke was detected on the plane, the flight made an emergency landing in Iceland. After landing, the problem was found to be a short circuit in a television screen. However, there was a delay while it was decided who was to make the repairs. During the 22 hour delay, passengers were provided hotel accommodations.
What: Frontier Airlines Airbus A319-10 en route from Denver to Mexico
Where: Denver
When: Sep 5th 2009
Why: When the plane indicated a hydraulics system warning, the crew returned to the Denver airport for an emergency landing where they landed about 40 minutes after takeoff.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Vala
What: Red Wings Airlines Tupolev TU-204 en route from Nizhny Novgorod to Antalya
Where: Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport.
When: Saturday 6:40 p.m.
Who: 208 passengers (also reported as 200)
Why: After experiencing an engine problem, the crew burned fuel and landed safely at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport. No injuries were reported.
What: Delta/Northwest DC-9 en route from Detroit to Manchester
Where: Hancock Airport
When: Thursday afternoon
Who: 108 people
Why: An indicator signified that an engine failed, causing the pilot to commit to an emergency landing at Hancock airport. No injuries were reported.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Michael Durning
What: American Eagle E135 en route from Fayetteville, Arkansas to LaGuardia
Where: Springfield-Branson National Airport.
When: Sep 2nd 2009 6:40
Who: 22 passengers on board
Why: When smoke appeared in the cockpit, the pilot made an emergency landing in Springfield. No injuries reported and the source of the smoke was not found.
Not too sure how the passengers felt about ending up in Springfield instead of NY though.
What: Emirates Airline EK514 flying from Dubai to New Delhi
Where: Diverted to the Pakistani port city of Karachi
When: 10.35 pm
Who: 101 passengers, including external affairs minister SM Krishn coming from Brazil, and several senior Indian officials
Why: After waiting for the weather over India to clear, the pilot fly back to Dubai at 11.44 pm
Replacement flights were available (if crowded)
