Stricken JAL flight suffered major turbine damage: JAL

Probably because Boeing also builds the Osprey. Not same division but Boeing nevertheless.

actually the Osprey program is off to a successful start despite 2 accidents in the last few years that go Down to pilot training.

When it has had enough hours in the air comfortable to other aircraft, current trends show that its safety record will be as good or better than the rest.

Theres no other aircraft in the world like the Boeing Osprey!

Why would you have a problem with showing Boeing engineers a little love??

Probably because Boeing also builds the Osprey. Not same division but Boeing nevertheless.

Wtfjapan- exactly my point. The aircraft suffered what could have been a catastrophic failure with the loss of an engine, and stayed in the air like a champ until it was safe to land.

Why would you have a problem with showing Boeing engineers a little love??

Picture makes it Look like someone strapped a JATO pack to it.

Nishikat...this is a good point. Israel has been using this for about 3 decades now and the Israeli technology is used at many USAF bases. I think the challenges are much more complex at commercial airports due to much heavier amount of air traffic but I think technology is catching up to meet these challenges.

Experts say a single bird the size of a goose has the capability to stop a jet engine and bring a commercial airliner down. That's why avoiding bird strikes is a critical operation at airports around the country. So what if there were technology that could detect birds at and around airports, and help pilots avoid them?

It turns out that such technology does exist, and the Federal Aviation Administration has been testing it for a decade. Yet of all the commercial airports in the United States, only three are currently using the technology: Seattle-Tacoma, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Chicago's O'Hare.

a report that says radar systems that can detect birds near airports have "proven their ability" near airports. 

(news source)

Let's look forward to a safer flying future (when this technology becomes common around the world)

It will be interesting to find out the root cause. These engines are extraordinarily reliable and it takes a pretty good strike to damage the turbine blades. What about the "scratch on the primary wing". Is he referring to slats on the front of the wing? This could have been caused by ejected parts of the blade during landing/return to Haneda. The 777 generally uses a GE90 series engine, which has blades made of a composite (carbon fiber material).

As for what Laguna said, the 777 has an ETOPS rating of 330 minutes which basically means it can fly any route as long as it is never further than 330 minutes from an emergency landing location. This allows it to take routes from the South Pacific to the U.S. It is a very reliable plane which can take off and land on one engine.

I think the 777 has had one accident in something like 20,000,000 hours and the accident was a result of pilot error. The plane survived the tail strike at SFO. Everyone survived the crash and the only casualty was a result of a passenger being run over by a rescue vehicle.

Sorry for babbling...just flew a 777 back from the U.S. yesterday...a bit jet lagged but wanted to chime in. I always feel comfortable stepping onto a 777

flying is still tons safer than driving a car

By what metric? By distance travelled, time travelled, or by number of trips?

This is one of the reasons I like LCC airlines. They have newer planes and fly shorter distances.

A bird strike can affect any aircraft no matter what airline company operating it.

Since this incident happened right at take off near the airport, not sure how "shorter distances" has anything to do with it.

Thats a Boeing for you. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking. except the engine isnt Boeing its General Electric, i took a licking and it stopped ticking. Just like the Qantas A380 with a RR engine that exploded, Airbus / Qantas wasn't at fault it was RR that was responsible for the failure

Balu57

Aircraft is not Equipped with a Camera, Especially Commercial Aircraft. the only thing that tells the Pilots is the Aircraft Instruments

 I thought it was mandatory for all airplanes to have cameras both under and over the body just so they can check what happened . 

What makes you think that?

flying is still tons safer than driving a car

Thats a Boeing for you. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

Balu57

You can rest assured that the footage is being analyzed and the proper response to give to the public is being constructed. Perhaps once they edit the aliens out we will see footage or even feetage.

I do not get it ! I thought it was mandatory for all airplanes to have cameras both under and over the body just so they can check what happened . It is really disturbing to read about it but the only images we have are those from cameras around and at Haneda ....... Where are the images from the plane , itself ?

Twin engine planes are designed to withstand the worst possible situation (fully loaded complete takeoff) on one engine only. They could also immediately land fully loaded, with one engine (it was done before), but with significantly increased risks:

Much higher landing speed and a longer braking distance,

VERY hot brakes (possibly causing a fire if there's any fuel still flowing from the stopped engine).

Reduced safety margins.

Therefore it is preferable to dump the fuel, as soon as the onboard fire is stopped.

Fully-loaded takeoff and climbout on one engine... that's one hell of a machine.

drone strike?

I imagine that was a long hour for everyone on board.

It only says a bird strike was "initially" suspected and then there's no mention of blood, feathers, or anything biological in the turbine. I wonder if it's possible they sucked in a drone rather than a bird.

Scary. I'm glad no one is hurt!

Large planes aren't rated to land with a full fuel weight, so he circled over Tokyo Bay for a bit to dump most of it. 777s can cross the Pacific on one engine - the problem is that, if that goes out and you're not close to land, you're dead.

One hour! My good gosh. Pilots did a good job. This is one of the reasons I like LCC airlines. They have newer planes and fly shorter distances.

I can easily imagine the serious incident this time has made all passengers' and crews' blood freeze. Lucky no injuries were reported.

Hope they deboarded the passengers quickly to allow them to change their shorts.

The plane circled around above Tokyo Bay for about an hour dumping excess fuel from it's other wing tank, and then landed back at Haneda.

If it had returned right after the engine fire, it could have been a major disaster.

Fortunately no one was injured in the incident.

Hope they deboarded the passengers quickly to allow them to change their shorts.

goodness gracious great balls of fire!