Alaska Airlines Flight 731 took off from Seattle around 9 p.m. with 167 passengers and crew Sunday bound for Anchorage, but the flight became anything but routine. One of the Boeing 737 900’s two main engines shut down as it neared Ketchikan. The jet continued to fly on its left engine for a safe touchdown in Juneau.
“The 737 900 is designed to fly capably on one engine,” said Paul McElroy, spokesman for Alaska Airlines. “Pilots followed standard procedures and landed in Juneau without incident at approximately 11:10 p.m. AST.”
“In cases like this get pilots call ahead for priority handling from air traffic control,” McElroy said. “This is standard any time anything goes wrong during a flight.”
McElroy said Alaska Airlines is not releasing the names of the crew at this time.
Alaska Airlines arranged hotels for most of the flight’s passengers. Some decided to stay at the airport. Passengers flew out to their original destination Monday morning and mid-afternoon Monday.
McElroy said he was not aware of any medical issues.
On the ground, the City and Borough of Juneau’s special airport division of Capital City Fire and Rescue was on alert and stood by with emergency equipment. Capital City partners with the airport to provide Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting or ARFF.
“We were all on standby as well,” Patty deLaBruere deputy airport manager at the Juneau International Airport. Airport workers were on scene to keep the runway open afterward flight 731 had landed.
Some airport staff were called back in to help, deLaBruere said, including extra security, airport management and, to make matters trickier, staff to clear the snow that fell Sunday night.
No other flight was delayed due to the incident, deLaBruere said, although passengers of Flight 731 may have been delayed in their other connections, she said.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (20)
Add commentWhat was safest course of action?
Glad everyone was safe, and the pilots acted professionally in addressing the emergency.
However, hopefully the NTSB will do a complete review, including answering whether the flight should have diverted to Ketchikan, the nearest airport that could accommodate the plane.
*******************************************************************
The rest of the story (not printed in the Empire) is:
The Boeing 737-900...... lost power in its right engine as the plane was flying at 34,000 feet south of Prince Rupert in British Columbia. Clint Johnson, Alaska region chief for the National Transportation Board, said the engine failure was "contained," meaning no parts came flying out.
The crew descended and attempted to restart the engine, but couldn't, Johnson said.
"So they elected to declare an emergency, dump fuel, and elected to land at Juneau," Johnson said.
Ketchikan was the nearest jetport but Juneau wasn't much farther, he said. McElroy (Alaska Air spokesman) said Juneau was preferable because the airline had mechanics there.....
But at 9:48 p.m. Alaska time, the plane signaled Vancouver, B.C., flight control that it was about 100 miles southeast of Prince Rupert and starting to descend and reduce speed. It passed Ketchikan at 390 mph around 10:19 p.m., flying at 20,700 feet above Prince of Wales Island. It landed in Juneau at 11:04 and arrived at the gate at 11:15.
********************************************************************
In other words, for the convenience of Alaska Airlines and possible the passengers' as well, the aircraft flew for almost one extra hour on one engine, rather than landing at Ketchikan (and bringing the mechanics- and an aircraft for the passengers- there). This contradicts the NTSB staff's assertion that Juneau wasn't much father. Under similar circumstances, would the NTSB condone an aircraft bypassing Seattle and land in Portland?
Did the decision to fly for a significant period of time keep passenger safety as the highest concern? While the chances of the 2nd engine failing might have been very remote, so were the chances of the first engine failing in the first place.
Was flying for an extra hour on one engine the most prudent decision under the circumstances, or did that create unnecessary risk for anyone? Hopefully the NTSB will answer that during the course of its review.
Build The Road! oh...wait a minute...
Merry Christmas, glad nobody died.
Hmm...
The aircraft and crew apparently weren't in jeopardy, so there were no FARs broken here. The crew decided to head to the nearest *SUITABLE* airport, which happened to be Juneau. What made JNU better than KTN? Well lets see... no need to ferry people across the channel, plenty of hotel rooms in Juneau vs holiday season in KTN, a longer runway, more Alaska Air staff on hand, and oh yes, those pesky mechanics. Plus, Alaska Air has flown the 737-900 in here on a regular basis unlike KTN.
Had the engine BLOWN up, then the pilots would have went to KTN or SIT instead of Juneau. But if they reported problems 100 miles south of Prince Rupert while at cruise, they'd have to drop fairly quickly to get to KTN.
I wasn't in the cockpit so I can't nor will complain about the fact they overflew KTN.
Between risking falling out
Between risking falling out of the sky in a ball of fire or spending the night I ktown... just kidding, :p
Travelnate: Look at a map
The flight crew reported the problem at 9:48 PM 100 miles SOUTH of Prince Rupert, which is 88 miles south of Ketchikan.
In a distance of 188 miles, the pilots could easily have descended to a landing in Ketchikan. Typically a normal descent, using a Flight Management Computer (FMC), would start at just over half that distance for an aircraft flying at 33,000 feet or so.
In any case, as noted above, the question was what was the safest course of action (Ketchikan or Juneau), not what was the most convenient (Juneau).
Couch Pilots
It's nice to see all the couch pilots in good form. Now everyone just keep those couches safe, and remember, any couch you can walk away from is a good couch.
For those in the unknow, Pilot in Command mean just that. The aircraft pilot has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight - not air-traffic control, not corporate management, not the FAA and not the couch pilots.
@Ratfishtim
I’m not sure what that status is now days but Ketchikan airport used to close at night. It is an uncontrolled airport even when open and it closes t 2130. No ice and snow removal is done while the airport is closed and no surface conditions are checked or reported when the airport is closed. It is classified as ARFF IB as is PAJN but, it does not have any ARFF capability while closed. PAJN has ARFF IB capability 24/7 and the runways are generally cleared 24/7 or are at least monitored and can be cleared within a very short time if needed.
I think that the PIC MADE A VERY GOOD CALL and all evidence indicates that the desicion he made was excellent. No BUMPS NO BRUISES AND NO DEATHS.
@ Ratfishin and Humanbeing
One thing you guys are forgetting: the pilot's life was on the line as well as the passengers. Do you seriously think there is any chance that he thought there was a statistically meaningful chance he's crash by diverting to JNU? My guess is that he values his own skin at least as much as the passengers he was carrying. Go back to playing MS Flight Simulator. Leave the real piloting to the professionals. J.E Trolls second-guessing the pros is hilarious.
Merry Christmas.
The MD80 Alaska Airplane
That crashed north of Los Angeles coming from Cabo San Lucas 15 or so years ago had the problem with the Jack Screw before they went over Los Angeles air space and could have easily landed there, but chose to go to San Fransisco because they have their own mechanics there. All on board died and it could have been prevented if they would have landed in San Diego or Los Angeles. I am pretty sure those pilots did not think they would die either. You have a problem in the air, LAND the damn plane as soon as possible. They could fly in mechanics from Juneau or Seattle to fix it in KTN.
I wasn't in the cockpit..
But I can tell you that all these new duhicky EFIS computer screens requires a pilot to scroll through at least *4* screens full of data to have an idea of what's going on with their engines. We don't live in a day and age of steam gauges when a pilot (or flight engineer) can scan over 20 or so instruments to see what's up with their #2 engine.
And of course, lets not forget the earlier facts presented.. KTN airport is NOT maintained when it isn't attended, and at the time of the engine failure it wasn't. This is straight from their NOTAMS:
- NO SNOW OR ICE REMOVAL WHEN ARPT NOT ATTND.
The last operation that night was 100 minutes prior to the flight incident occuring.
So place yourself in the cockpit. Yer cruising a long at 33,000 feet and suddenly #2 engine shuts down and a few small alarms go off in the cockpit. You ask ATC for a lower altitude and start to troubleshoot the engine. So you are now dropping altitude at about 1,500 feet/minute while cycling through the EFIS and the other pilot (who is also the one flying) is probably pulling out the manuals / checklists. As you get closer and closer to KTN/JNU, you aren't quite thinking about nearest suitable airport - because your inflight computer shows you the nearest airports, distance, heading, and estimated time of arrival - you can look down and see this with the push of ONE button... but you see the list.
15 minutes later, you decide you can't restart #2 and talk about continuing the flight or landing. Dispatch and maintenance are also talking to you on the HF. So now, instead of 188 miles from KTN, you are now 45, and 200 to JNU. You talk with the other pilot about the idea of landing on a possibly slick runway with only ONE ENGINE reverser working (think TAM A320 in Sao Paulo - landed on a slick runway, with only one engine reverser working on a short runway, everyone died). You look at nearest airport - and there's PAJN... runway will be clear, we have mechanics, AND we have an extra thousand feet of runway. 737-900s aren't known for short field performance.
So do you circle for 30 minutes, if not an hour, waiting for the KTN staff to hop the ferry over (cause remember, the bridge to no-where isn't needed?), then hop in their rigs, and clear the runway, or do we fly an additional 48 minutes to JNU where its open and staffed.
Now what do I know? Its not like I know some of the people who work dispatch (for Alaska and a handful of other airlines) and go through this stuff maybe once a week. I mean, I wasn't in the cockpit. But I'm not going to judge a pilot for making a decision, because I wasn't there. I'm not sure this will be much of a blip on the NTSB's radar - I think Boeing and CFM will make a bigger deal of this than anyone - since it was their airplane (and engine) that failed.
I've been a passenger on a plane with an inflight engine shut down. Its not TOO much fun for anyone, some people are panicked, the rest of us are wondering "oh crap, please don't land in the middle of nowhere". The decision was made to continue to ORD (Chicago O'Hare) as they had the longest runway available, winds were favorable, the other engine was working fine, and the pilot said it wasn't prudent we land in Moline/Quad Cities considering Chicago was only 20 minutes further.
Alaska Airlines
As a resident and frequent flier on Alaska Airlines, I have complete faith in the pilots to choose Juneau over Ketchikan. That plane is designed to fly on one engine if need be. Some of the worst landings and takeoffs I have ever had are in Ketchikan and when I go there, I want ALL engines working. Juneau is a piece of cake compared to Ketchikan in bad weather.
While I realize we all love to hate Alaska Airlines, we also love and depend on them. I am insulted to think anyone would ever believe that the pilots would risk their lives to land here. Remember, they may worry about the passengers lives, but theirs come first, just like any of us. It doesn't matter what the company would have asked them, if there was any risk, they would have landed at Annette if that was the choice. Give them credit, the pilots really care and are the most professional in the world.
Ketchikan is not an easy landing!
Coming in crosswinds with one engine on that short runway with no emergency crew -- are you joking?
Good call, AK Air.
Some of you need to trust a bunch of professionals doing their jobs and assessing risks to determine the best action. If you stand behind a firefighter and tell him where to aim the hose you're just going to trip him up. Let people work.
@humanbeing...No Kidding
What I cannot figure out is why nobody thought of landing at Annette since it's much closer to where the aircraft was when the incident occurred and has plenty of runway length plus it has a crosswind runway.
Couch pilot or not...
Let's say we're climbing out of Ketchikan on our way to Juneau (like we've all done time after time) and the no. 2 engine dies. Do we continue the flight as normal? No way, one circle and we're back on the ground in KTN. If passenger safety is really #1 priority they head straight to KTN and get that plane on the ground as soon as possible. JNU makes life easier (cheaper) for Alaska Airlines, just like it was supposed to for the MD80 that ended up in the Pacific en route to the nearest airport...(nearest airport that was convenient for Alaska Airlines maintenance staff.)
@Humanbeing
ya ya ya... we all (know)..............
you would've saved the day. It's just that somebody would have to have pried you away from the bar down at the legion first.
TIKITIME is wrong
MD80, did not try to go on to San Francisco. It was trying to land in LA, look where it went down. If you are going to make statements, please go back, look at the history of the flight and then have your say.
@Connie
Your Wrong! The flight crashed a few miles north of Anacapa island which is North of Los Angeles, they already PASSED up the airport when the problem was so bad they decided to turn back to LAX. How many airports are between Cabo San Lucas and LAX that they passed up and could have landed at??? Dont be so emotional Connie, use facts not emotions to comment here.
well for starters the plane
well for starters the plane started out in Puerto Vallarta, not Cabo. Quite the difference.
And on another note, they discovered the problem while east of Catalina Island. The pilots actually ASKED to fly to LAX, so not sure what plane crash you are talking about. Please learn to use Google, even though I know exactly where to find the transcript, its the first link when you search for "Alaska Airlines 261"
16:15:19 ASA261 LA Alaska two sixty one uh we're with you at twenty two five we have a jammed stabilizer and ah we're maintaining altitude with difficulty uh but uh we can maintain altitude we think and our intention is to land at Los Angeles
16:15:35 R25 Alaska two sixty one Alaska Center roger uh you're cleared to Los Angeles Airport via present position uh direct Santa Monica direct Los Angeles and uh you want lower now or what do you wanna do sir
16:15:56 ASA261 Center Alaska two sixty one I need to uh get down about ten change my configuration make sure I can control the jet and I'd like to do that out there over the bay if I may
16:16:06 R25 Ok Alaska two sixty one roger that stand by there
16:16:10 D14 That's fine go ahead green light
16:16:11 R25 Hey Alaska two sixty one wants to go into LA
16:16:14 D14 No problem
16:16:15 R25 He wants to get down to around ten thousand feet but he wants to do it out there over the bay
16:16:17 D14 Sure
@travel nate
Your right about Puerto Vallarta, however, if you go to Wikipedia about the crash it clearly states "after repeated attempts to overcome the jam with primary and alternative trim systems, during which time the flight crew had SEVERAL discussions about whether to divert to Los Angeles or continue to San Fransisco" The NTSB found that the pilots made the right decision to go to LA, however, found that the Ak Air dispatchers appeared to have attempted to influence the pilots to go to San Fransisco. My point is that all that arguing and attempts to fix it in the air caused delays in landing. There are other airports they could have landed at too. All too late.
If you look at page 19 of the
If you look at page 19 of the NTSB report, there's a map. The *main* event occurred EAST of Catalina.
www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/AAR0201.pdf
The plane crashed about 13 minutes AFTER the major event happened. The pilots were trying to figure out what was going on, and was talking to maintenance & dispatch. The PIC (pilot in command) has full authority and taking into account what he's told by dispatch, maintenance, and actually feeling what his plane is doing. The plane started acting up at 1549ish and that's where I think people's opinions of what happened get distorted.
You state they had discussions to go to San Francisco. There were some initial conversations were about some issues with the autopilot and jammed stabilizer tail. Dispatch didn't have the full picture, and yes, they initially asked why LA instead of SFO and just assumed it was a regular landing. However, when things became more aware then dispatch didn't push SFO anymore. But that's what dispatch does. They ask questions. They didn't have ACARS data like they do now (which can give them a much better picture of what happened).
At 1612:33, the captain told LAX maintenance, we did both the pickle switch and
the suitcase handles and it ran away full nose trim down. At 1612:42, the captain added,
and now were in a pinch so were holding uh were worse than we were. At 1613:04,
the captain indicated to LAX maintenance that he was reluctant to try troubleshooting the
trim system again because the trim might go in the other direction. At 1613:10, the LAX
mechanic responded, ok well your discretion uh if you want to try it, thats ok with me if
not thats fine. um well see you at the gate.
So even before they asked ATC to go to LAX, the pilots had already decided that's where they are going.
A plane isn't like a car - you just simply can't pull over. Even when declaring an emergency into a major airport like LA, its going to take 20 minutes to get in because you have to move all the other planes out of your way or get them on the ground. The pilots quickly found out they couldn't put the plane into many maneuvers that cause g-forces, so they couldn't even land @ LA if they wanted to at 15:53ish. They'd probably be a black spot somewhere near Santa Monica if they tried, and killed a lot more people.
Now I did post the events as told to me by someone who works in dispatch for Alaska Airlines (which was even mirrored by a totally different person that also works in the same area and said the events as stated are what happened), and even some 737-800/900 pilots for Alaska have read this thread and their own blood boils by some of the opinions posted. We weren't in the cockpit. We didn't know what was going on, nor do we as armchair pilots have all the facts. What we do know is the plane landed safely, Alaska Air got everyone to their destination, and the KTN airport wasn't used. A 737-800/900 pilot messaged me on Facebook and even said the plane could glide for 100 miles at that altitude if it lost an engine (if we're talking doomsday scenarios here).
And the NTSB has decided to NOT investigate this.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=12&year=2012