Back to Squawk list
  • 12

American Jumbo Jet Forced to Make Emergency Landing at DFW

Submitted
During the American Airline flight 963 the Boeing 777 was forced to make an emergency landing after their right engine had supposibly caught on fire. The FAA has said that the landing gear may have also caught on fire, but there is no proof yet. (www.kens5.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 0
777 a jumbo????????????????
jicaro
MAybe just as big in size, and wideness Wayne, but to me there is only one
and it started w/ the 47-1
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, that's kinda my feelin too. That's where I also thought the term "heavy" originated from but it seems they are trying to throw everything in there now
bogdawg
bogdawg 0
By definition, a jumbo jet simply is a wide-body or an aircraft which carries several hundred pax (look it up). The 777 fits the bill. What's the problem with that description? It does not mean 747.

The reporter for KENS5 certainly did will in Hyping A Story 101. "The aircraft made a SHARP turn, then ANOTHER, then ANOTHER. Really, genius? It's called a traffic pattern.
bogdawg
bogdawg 0
Sorry, the reporter did WELL.
preacher1
preacher1 0
bogdawg: you gave enlightenment on JUMBO. What about "HEAVY". That at one time, as was JUMBO, was reserved for the 47's, 10's and 1011's. Now it seems as if everything is getting thrown in the mix. Where is the official cut for it. I can't find anybody that seems to know but it seems to be catching everything from about a 67 up these days, according to some ATC guys.
jicaro
Bogdawg your definition is correct, but with all respect, to my knowledge since the 47 flew in 1969, and kicked off in the 70's it has been the only A/C in my memory with the distinct definition of being called the JUMBO JET, and when the 10's and the 1011's came out in that era they were called wide bodies. So that is why I commented like this on th 47.
And yup the reporter did well>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LOL
jicaro
LOL at Wayne

Wayne how is it I comment on something, and you do the same we log it in w/o seening each others comments, and they are similar> wow
I had written a thing on the ATC designation to for Heavy, but took it out, thinking maybe not necessary,but then you write it, but it is true Also the new designation for the A380, is SUPER, SUPER JUMBO, SUPER HEAVY
so a new era in ATC But again there on the otherside
sharperd
The FAA defines Heavy as follows: Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) or more whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight. The designations are to establish separation criteria because of wake turbulence. Although a 757 is a "Large" aircraft, the FAA requires use of "Heavy" separation criteria for this airplane.
davysims
David Sims 0
If I recall correctly, "Heavy" is any aircraft over 255,000 lbs.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
DFW Tower even considers the 75 a "heavy" due to the wake turbulence it puts out. But ya lots of things are considered heavies nowa days boys! ha.
jicaro
Yes A/C over 255,000 Lbs, has Heavy designation
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, looking at the official definition, you can see a definite break there, say between a 757 and 767 BUT, Toby I agree with you; I have been in/out of DFW a lot in a 757 and not only me but others get called heavy to other Aircraft because of the wake. Them tower boys are gunshy at times but ever since it was first identified way back yonder, they have it drilled into them.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Boys, I got a question here: Now, Richard gives the FAA official designation, but twice, from David & Robert, ya'll say 255,000 lbs. Curious, where is that coming from and I am assuming ya'll are talking MTOW
sharperd
In April 2010, FAA revised the definition to conform to the ICAO definition, 140000 kg or 300000 lb MTOW. And yes, ATC treats 757s as heavies, even though by weight it falls into the "Large" category.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Thank You Richard
jicaro
Thanks, Richard

Stand Corrected, was not aware it changed in 2010 to 300,000, and yes MTOW
thanks for info
fatfogy
Larry Cooley 0
Heavy or not, did AA have EPA clearance to dump fuel ??
aa757lga
Scott Wallace 0
EPA clearance to dump fuel?!?! It was an emergency. The authority of the flight crew reigns superior to any law/regulation not only of the FAA but any other agency or gov't entity. On that note, I'm sure the EPA doesn't like dumps...but it's all relative to safety.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss