Kalitta 747 drops an engine inbound New York !!!! Look out B

website-info · Post by **website-info** » 21 Oct 2004, 19:20

INFO-Cargo Plane Bound For JFK Loses Engine

http://www.wnbc.com/news/3838396/detail.html?
treets=ny&tid=2652328263813&tml=ny_9am&tmi=ny_9am_1_08000110212004&ts=
H

wnbc.com
Cargo Plane Bound For JFK Loses Engine
POSTED: 8:09 AM EDT October 21, 2004
UPDATED: 9:21 AM EDT October 21, 2004

CHICAGO -- A cargo plane bound for New York's Kennedy International
Airport landed safely at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after losing an
engine somewhere over Michigan.

The Kalitta Air jet took off from O'Hare International Airport in
Chicago late Wednesday. It later reported mechanical problems with
one of its engines, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman in
Chicago said.

The Boeing 741-R was able to fly but was diverted as a safety
precaution to Detroit, where it landed without incident, FAA
officials said. No one was injured.

After the landing, airline personnel discovered the engine was
completely gone, FAA officials said.

Michigan authorities searched Thursday for the engine, which may have
fallen into Lake Michigan, the FAA said.

The FAA will investigate the incident, but the results of an
investigation could take weeks, the FAA said.
© 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

levent · Post by **levent** » 21 Oct 2004, 19:33

The bird lost engine nr. 1, which also damaged the wing quite seriously. It appears to be that engine nr. 2 isn´t in its correct position either. This incident reminds me of the El Al 747 crash.

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 21 Oct 2004, 19:45

This indeed reminds me to the EL AL accidnt above Amsterdam too. Luckely this time it didn't have the same disastrous results as it did in Amsterdam. Maybe there is a problem with the engine suspencion. I hope investigators will do a good job on this incident. Luckely the engine didn't fall over populated area. I can imagine that such an engine falling from so high can cause a lot of damage. Maybe we can speak of some luck here.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 21 Oct 2004, 20:18

Thank god rhe crew was able to land the plane safely...

Thanks for the piece of info Tony

Chris

JetB · Post by **JetB** » 21 Oct 2004, 20:44

Thats what happens when you fly junk !!!! Look at Biman, same crap.....

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 21 Oct 2004, 21:01

Who says this plane is crap? If it is flying it is certified!! So it is supposed to be safe. This could also happen to a new plane, you never know. It is quit an expression to say this plane is crap!

Post by **Bruspotter** » 21 Oct 2004, 21:10

hllow

How,another 747 problem,sounds not good.
Except that this flight was able to land safely.
Wich is very positive.

Must be weird to see a 747-engine falling down,or
to find him somewhere.

Regards: Yannick

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 21 Oct 2004, 21:13

I agree with Waldova on this one, just because an aircraft is old is doesn't mean that it is unsafe. Depending on the country of its origin, the aircraft has to match the same high-standards all the other (newer) aircraft are required to.
And the comparisation to Biman isn't right as well, I think that in the United States the safety standards are a lot higher, and the aircraft are better maintained, and the standards will be controlled by authorities more frequently/strictly.
How old was the aircraft that crashed in the Bijlmermeer?

Age doesn't mean a thing.

Post by **speedbird1** » 21 Oct 2004, 21:17

Any ideas on where the engine is now!???

Emirates

Rago · Post by **Rago** » 21 Oct 2004, 21:34

BobClaes wrote:Thats what happens when you fly junk !!!! Look at Biman, same crap.....

Stupid reaction!!! If you say they're flying crap, show us proof of it. If you can't make your opinion "hard", please don't make such an impulsive statement anymore

A318 · Post by **A318** » 21 Oct 2004, 22:05

Yeah Bob, have to agree with that also. We talked about it lots of times before, the age of the plane is no issue, it's all about maintenance! I told you about the 727 I flew in Peru in '98 which was in a perfect condition and I also told you about Fly Air and there very old and (as far as I can see it) bad maintenant A300's. So to see this plane is crap is not really correct, that maybe somebody missed some important spots during the technical groundcheck could be very true!

Greetz,

Erwin

744rules · Post by **744rules** » 21 Oct 2004, 22:05

an "old-looking" plane does not mean it is in bad condition.

Post by **Apuneger** » 21 Oct 2004, 23:31

Thanks for this news. In fact, it's much safer to fly a well-maintained 747-100 than a bad-maintained 777-300.

Ivan

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 22 Oct 2004, 09:53

Looks like they have something with engines,
remember this picture ?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/224038/M/

earlier this year they had also an engine fire after take off on a 747 in the middle east,

I belief they had also a engine separation on a DC-8 in the late 90s

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 22 Oct 2004, 12:50

Funny, imagine you would look out of your window and see this. But on this flight it was on purpose. They departed with one engine less from the start. So it was not an engine loss and you can't compare it to this incident. But the person who posted the picture also says there was a crack found in the engine suspension. Well, this is what caused the El Al plane to crash too, they also had a crack in one of the engine suspension and this crack had major concequences.

regi · Post by **regi** » 22 Oct 2004, 16:28

before Wiloo wakes up, can somebody tell me if Kalita has ever landed on Ostend airport?
"look what I found in my garden!"

Cargo planes, after the MK crash , people start to think.

Btw, silly commenter on Biman: Biman doesn't fly 747 but great DC-10. Plus Airbus and Fokkers. (well, still, some, as long as the runway is dry)
What was the reason to involve Biman in this crash report? Did you get stuck in Dhaka for some days because of technical problems?
Don't fly during the "hadj", don't fly during the monsoon, don't fly the London-Sylhet stretch, just, don't fly Biman. But don't complain they bombard us with engines. That is not true.

Post by **luchtzak** » 22 Oct 2004, 16:48

regi wrote:before Wiloo wakes up, can somebody tell me if Kalita has ever landed on Ostend airport?

It has: https://www.aviation24.be/postp39610.html#39610

JetB · Post by **JetB** » 22 Oct 2004, 18:48

This is the last year Biman fly's DC10 to the US, and why ?
Not because Biman doesn't like there DC10's anymore but because the US stops them 8O .

This could be a game show but fiend me one person working on the tarmac that would fly Biman 8) , now that would be a challenge !. Guess that is because it is such a great AC

!!!!!!.

JetB · Post by **JetB** » 22 Oct 2004, 18:51

About Kalitta's B747 how often cant the captain not even start his AC ?, great maintenance !.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 22 Oct 2004, 20:33

B744skipper wrote:I agree with Waldova on this one, just because an aircraft is old is doesn't mean that it is unsafe. .... in the United States the safety standards are a lot higher, and the aircraft are better maintained, and the standards will be controlled by authorities more frequently/strictly.
.... Age doesn't mean a thing.

Fabian, you probably did not read this, confirming what you said:
Concerning Ward Mareels crashed Cessna:
Walker said the 38-year-old aircraft would not be considered unsafe because of its age alone. The safety of an aircraft “really all depends on how well the plane was built and how well maintained,” he said. The FAA does not keep maintenance records on aircraft, he said. That’s the responsibility of the aircraft owner.