Author Topic: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR  (Read 20750 times)

Offline Eric M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« on: August 19, 2012, 01:07:40 AM »
A United B757 apparently blew a tire on takeoff out of EWR and circled for awhile to burn fuel before landing successfully back at EWR. But not before some interesting ATC/FC exchanges. My favorite:

NY Approach controller: Sorry, I'm kind of in a tough spot here.
Flight crew: Yeah, so are we.

Here's CNN's coverage: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/travel/new-jersey-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

FlightAware's flight track hasn't quite updated with the actual route traveled.

Oh, one other thing - this clip is complete except for the last approach frequency (125.500), which isn't covered by EWR feeds. But the rest of it is all there, from pushback to landing clearance.



Offline dvalentine1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2012, 01:46:00 AM »
Thanks For This Upload Sir I Was Listen To The Archieve's Trying To Find This Thanks Very Much

Offline Eric M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2012, 02:11:14 AM »
You're welcome.. LiveATC is here at your service!

757-rules

  • Guest
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2012, 06:40:01 PM »
I hear them repeatedly saying United 9096 instead of United 96.....

Offline notaperfectpilot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • PPL
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2012, 07:33:19 AM »
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4547f10a&opt=0

looks like they also had engine problems also

Offline Eric M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2012, 11:27:56 PM »
757-rules - I had the same thought. It was the fast patter of "United 96" that's misleading - the "nited" part sounds a lot like "nine-oh" when right up against "nine-six."

Offline Eric M

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2012, 11:30:51 PM »
Notaperfectpilot - my hunch (substantiated by absolutely nothing) is that the first engine flamed out to debris, and the second engine under extreme load (not to mention the plane was at max takeoff weight on a shorter EWR runway) caused the other engine to run red. But that second engine (not affected by debris) bounced back fairly quickly, and the debris-ingested engine was back within 10 minutes of takeoff, as I recall.

Offline Fred_Garvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2012, 09:23:24 AM »
I don't understand the Avherald story. As I understood it they declare  an engine failure then as they got it back they said we have two good engines several times.

I never heard anything about dual engine problems and it was pretty clear it was "two good engines" rather than "Two red engines"

Offline Rick108

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2012, 01:17:07 PM »
Yeah, I agree with Fred.  I'm sure if, at any time, there was any hint of a problem with both engines, they would never have headed away from the airport to hold and burn fuel...

757-rules

  • Guest
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2012, 04:39:20 PM »
I don't understand the Avherald story. As I understood it they declare  an engine failure then as they got it back they said we have two good engines several times.

I never heard anything about dual engine problems and it was pretty clear it was "two good engines" rather than "Two red engines"

Listen carefully...... First they had two "red" engines, after a while they solved the problem (you can hear the other guy in the background) so here's  a clue what might have been going on.....

------ My opinion -----
They took of from rwy 11 which isn't too long, the 757 has EPR which can be manually controlled by setting the temperature so the engines are able to run hotter than normal...
Sometimes this EPR runs out of sinc and both engines get too hot (that is:  the EGT gets too hot and need first 5 minutes to cool down, then 10 ect.)

There are 6 push buttons on a 757, TO/GA CRZ, CONT, CLB and two manual EPR knobs...
It is somesort of rule of thumb to push either button first before take-off, cause of the runaway EPR...  

It is also solved by pushing crz or to/ga again and engnes will operate normally...
----- ----

This will only be if there wasn't a birdstrike nor nosegear blown.... So we have to wait for the official statement, but my guess it the above.....
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 04:04:38 AM by 757-rules »

Offline Fred_Garvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2012, 09:25:22 PM »
I may be wrong but I still hear "an engine failure" and  "look like we have two good engines" not "red engines" a moment later.  at about 3:20 in response to a question about his left engine  he says "what we did see was an overtemp on that engine"
My impression is  the left engine ingested something then got itself sorted out moments later.
Anyway, good job by all concerned.

757-rules

  • Guest
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2012, 04:06:46 AM »
Yup I listened again and there was a engine overheat from only the left engine and no word about the right engine.

Now I'm confused with the number of pax, the first time he say's 173, then 133....

Offline Rick108

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: United 96 at EWR - engine out, return to EWR
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2012, 07:21:56 AM »
Yup I listened again and there was a engine overheat from only the left engine and no word about the right engine.

Now I'm confused with the number of pax, the first time he say's 173, then 133....
Yeah, I was thinking maybe 40 of them bailed when the pilot said they were having engine problems?   :-o