Air France Boeing 777 Experiences Engine Shutdown En Route To Los Angeles

On January 4th, a Boeing 777-300ER operated by Air France experienced engine issues on a flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Los Angeles (LAX). Flying over London, the crew made the decision to divert and return the aircraft to Paris. Let’s look at this most recent Air France Boeing 777 incident in today’s video!
Article: simpleflying.c...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [e-mail]

[@abheerbipin3536]

I was on this flight! Flight crew was awesome. Really appreciate all of them for being so professional and calm throughout the process. Customer service at Paris was awful at rebooking and accommodations.

[@epputalvinko]

CDG is awful in general so no surprises.. you lot would’ve been better of diverting to London 🤣

[@alexkonstantinoff5117]

F.A.A. Certification air craft must be able to take off fully loaded and fly on one engine.

[@m3redgt]

They should have diverted to London.. but not for technical reasons ^^

[@A2KLAU]

The crew made the right decision. It’s what ETOPS is for, and a plane can safely climb out on 1 engine let alone cruise with 1, so it was totally safe. They also had to dump fuel which I would they rather do out in the ocean than over the residential skies of a highly populated city like London. Which also meant they were already a fair way back to base, where they would also have their maintenance crew too. Further more it should have meant the passengers would be more easily rebooked onto other flights from base to get them to where they are rather than charter something from Heathrow for example. Final point from me is that for Air France they would rather have the plane come back to base for maintenance than send maintenance out to another airport to fix the aircraft only to then ferry it back to base to continue working. It would not only be a matter of extra cost and people power but also environmental in terms of burning fuel with no passengers.

[@tagwier]

I agree. A 777 is designed so that one engine can get it moving for another hour or two. CDG is their hub, so they have airline officials there as well.

[@PETE4955]

I disagree with this completely. Your being technical and that is not the right thing to do.

[@dianedougwhale7260]

If one is out fishing-an aircraft goes over smelling of kerosene--stub out that cigarette ?

[@FlyByWire1]

Why does it seem to only be Air France’s 777s that are having so many issues?? It leads me to believe they aren’t maintaining them adequately. No other 777 operator has so many recurring issues like this.

[@heidirabenau511]

At least they haven't been fatal *cough* Malaysia Airlines

[@theskyline1425]

United Airlines wants to know your location

[@Chromegrillz]

Maybe old aircraft.

[@aviationlba747]

@@Chromegrillz F-GSQL is 17 years old, so not an old aircraft by any stretch.

[@zachjones6944]

United has had a few issues.

[@explorenaked]

Great decision by the crew and Air France. I am also very happy that all these large commercial jets have redundancy that allows them to safely land when issue inevitably occur.

[@spelldaddy5386]

Firstly, they were well within ETOPS limits. Secondly, they needed to dump fuel anyway, adding extra track miles to the flight. At that point, it should make no difference between flying a straight route like returning to Paris or a racetrack pattern to stay near London. They even had a delay vector near Paris, as if they needed even more space. Given that the English Channel is not very wide, and that all airliners have such a great gliding range, flying over water should not even be the concern. The crew were well within their right to go back to Paris, and they exercised that right

[@petercoulter9721]

Dump the fuel and divert to the nearest suitable airport should be the priority, for the safety of passengers, aircrew and aircraft.

[@ahmadsamir7772]

According to flight radar24 emergency notifications AF had once a week maybe twice had emergency declaration !!

[@magnustan841]

The 777 is easily within ETOPS limits and the crew knows they have the strongest maintenance and crew support back home in Paris. They weren’t even that far when the incident happened, so yeah if I were the captain, I’d divert back to Paris instead of landing at Heathrow, where my company would have to fly a maintenance crew and another plane to pick up my passengers.

[@turbofanlover]

Hmmm. I think that I will just avoid flying with this airline. There seem to be some ongoing operational issues that need to be remedied.

[@tjr4459]

It’s my understanding that these planes are capable of flying with just one engine. In fact I’m sure it could’ve crossed the mighty Atlantic, but of course in the name of safety it was the right decision to return to Paris.

[@Avgeek1564]

Actually if they lose an engine over the ocean they have to divert to their nearest available alternative.

[@kevinbarry71]

Happy the pilots were able to land without getting confused as to who was in control

[@sdfft820]

Must be Air France! Funny how British Airways seem more professional.

[@eamonahern7495]

Whether or not it was the correct decision to cross the channel on one engine or not, the important thing is it landed safely and no one was injured or worse.

[@davidwebb4904]

I thought rules stated that upon an engine shut down, that the aircraft must land at closest available airport. Which would have been a London airport.

[@suprcel]

Because it was a trans Atlantic flight it would have needed to dump fuel before attempting to land and would have been directed to a holding pattern over the channel for that process, so returning to Air France’s base and dumping fuel at the same time isn’t much different as far as time in the air was concerned

[@davidwebb4904]

@@suprcel In the event of a second engine failure, I would want the plane to be within gliding distance of an airport..... Not in the middle of the channel...

[@JAMESWUERTELE]

@@davidwebb4904I agree and other than fuel I’m surprised they flew back.

[@cumplaywithme]

I refuse to fly on a twin aircraft over 11,000 km of water. Four engines every time or I go by sea !!!!

[@dianedougwhale7260]

@@cumplaywithme how many engines in the ships you travel on ?

[@RealSaulGoodman78]

Good job on the pilots of Air France

[@LeeAviation]

Glad it didn’t happen over the Atlantic!

[@corpsimmons575]

Dang the 777 back at it again with Engine issues.

[@danharold3087]

Not an expert but this sounds like a rather generic engine issue. Failure of an oil pump not a design issue.

[@Blank00]

engine issues are not Boeing’s fault.

[@glenn750]

Its always wise to play it safe and land at nearest Airport. Forget about additional after costs etc.

[@bwayobrian3381]

Hello...pliz do a video on the Turkish aircraft that had a bird strike as it was climbing out of Entebbe

[@stephengreen8150]

bring back The Queen OF the Skies, 747 has 4 engines much more comfortable, mentally!!!. 1 Down 1 to go or 1 Down 3 to go, i know which I prefer.

[@flying.Lubomir]

@gretathunberg

[@bennramnarine3395]

AF 777-300ER should have landed at an airport in the UK and not take the chance of returning to CDG. These 777 fleets are reaching their operational limits and there are a lot of incidents on the platform across airlines.

[@kirilmihaylov1934]

May be true

[@I_Like_Planes]

I thought you said a Boeing 777-300ER operated by airbus 😂

[@matthewbarber9846]

With the Kegworth disaster in mind, landing at the nearest airport always seems to be the most sensible option

[@debojyotigoswami7084]

.........always keep (2)two engines during manufacturing. It helps the Pilot to safe flight and also landing. Kindly note that one side 2 engines not stop at a time during flight. And at last thanks a lot to Pilot.////////👍

[@crypton7572]

3rd time seeing an air france 777 facing issues

[@nurrizadjatmiko21]

I am pretty sure everyone is asking, "What the heck is going on with Air France Boeing 777 ?"

[@kirilmihaylov1934]

It s always Air France

[@Flinton_airlines]

Yes believe that an long haul airliner could cover that distance easily

[@NightcoreSkies]

For god's sake, another AF 777-3ER?

[@mirak3050]

this is why we need 4 engine planes and not cramped 2 engine ones.

[@timdietzen0129]

That makes absolutely no sense. That’s why ETOPS was established and they go through thousands of hours of testing with those engines before they get a certification

[@us1fedvet]

Sure do like the 747 and A340.

[@AzovAzza]

My best friend pilots 747 freighters. From what I’ve learned, I feel like it’s absolutely ok for the flight crew to overfly the English Channel and return to Paris. If the flight crew deemed it safe from what they were seeing, I trust their judgment.

[@johnmoloney5296]

You would think they'd have headed for London

[@zaijiancelis]

If they did that, AF would have needed to fly in a maintenance team and another plane to pickup the stranded passengers. It’s cheaper to land in CDG instead of Heathrow

[@johnfairchild3421]

Time Gor A Complete TeBuild all the way to frames outward. That’s a lot of Air time all that stress

[@Nobi36]

Woah

[@bayard42350]

Your video is a clickbait. In the past 15 days, there were at least 6 engine failures and you only talked about the Air France one. You have no information about the exact failure but you ask the people to give their opinion whether the diversion airport was the right one or not.

[@proteus3034]

With all the boeing incidents at air france am beginning to think airbus is paying off the pilots

[@Blank00]

to be fair these AF incidents are not Boeing’s fault. If AF is pinning their incidents pn Boeing, then AF is most definitely not taking a good look at themselves

[@zaijiancelis]

It’s literally just AF’s 777s facing issues, no other airline is facing issues this frequent

[@balajiprabhakar2964]

Should have flown to London, the nearest destination

[@markusdecimus4732]

Mistake. Crew should land on the first runway near by.

[@IO-zz2xy]

It's what ETOPS was designed for. The plane probably could have flown much further on one engine.

[@enderbeam8089]

nice vid

[@dattaxpony920]

Fortunately modern airplanes are designed to fly and land with just one engine operational. The flight crew handled this situation with profession. CDG isn't that far from LHR so that the diversion wouldn't be that concerning. Now if they were over the poles then returning to home base would have been foolish.

[@aeromotive2]

whats up with Air France

[@Tomcatters]

Weird uh? Only in Air France fleet?...

[@alanarmstrong9571]

It is, & will always b wisest, to get the plane & its crew & passengers safely back on the ground, at the (closest airport or safe landing strip-area.!) It is never going to b a wise decision to have the plane to go to a further located landing area, regardless of how reliably renowned, the engineering craftsmanship of the engines r, even if one engine, can keep the vessel airborne for a lengthy period, If one engine develops any form of problems.! the logical, & commonsense way to go is to get the aircraft on the ground, as quickly as is safely possible.! Aircrafts r not designed, to ( pull over & park,) the ways as can b done with automobiles on the roadway, which suffer engine failure, or any other critical form of malfunction.!

[@samiatash2160]

Why English Channel? Just call it Channel like Gulf , or French Channel

[@PETE4955]

Should have landed at its nearest airport.

[@Adrian-qb1tp]

I always thought that on a engines loss they had to divert to the nearest available airport that could accommodate the aircraft type?

[@2011mendo]

ETOPS means safe one engine flying!!! Why have if it wasn't safe, quit trying to ster up problem's!!!!

[@cumplaywithme]

ETOPS stands for Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim 😮

[@dekayjones]

😂😂😂😂

[@richarddastardly6845]

i think it was fine, probably authorised by the powers above

[@BrokebackBob]

Air France doesn't allow GE to leave their logo on the engines. That, plus bad maintenance, explains the engines recalcitrance.

[@dianedougwhale7260]

Shenanigans- temper tantrum over that badge-

[@drdoolittle5724]

Was impressed such a heavy beast had made 30k in just over 1 hour!

[@F35Nerd]

Boeing... Not surprised

[@zaijiancelis]

It’s literally just AF’s Boeing 777s having issues, no other operator is having issues this frequent

[@norrisd.4711]

AF has some maintenance issues. They should contact Emirates to see how they maintain their fleet.

[@paulll0504]

Emirates also had issues with their fleet in 2022. It’s not a good example

[@rafaelwilks]

@@paulll0504 what issues

[@paulll0504]

Issues with flight commands

[@paulll0504]

With 777

[@johnjimmy1903]

One engine is perfectly fine it can do it

[@tscotom]

This type of jet engine problems can/will only increase. For TwinJets favoured today, losing 1 engine means you have only 1 engine left and that NEVER is good/safe, NO MATTER what the Safety Stats say. 😮

[@deeznuts3186]

quad jets aren’t in demand right now, and with the rise of point to point travel people don’t want to have to connect through hubs, resulting in quad jets being less and less favourable. twin jets can generally fly pretty well on one engine, and the safety benefits of quad jets aren’t enough to keep them in high enough demand to warrant their production, especially considering that no major airplane manufacturer makes a quad jet anymore

[@tscotom]

@@deeznuts3186 QuadJets are used primarily for long range flights over oceans, esp. in the Pacific routes. Any pilot (& passengers) in such flights would be less stressed w/4 engines than they'd be with 2. You simply have more options. 😉🙃

[@barefootprofessor3455]

Air France is disturbed airliner

[@samuelcarrillo836]

8

[@rafaelwilks]

This totally doesn't surprise me, Air France did not sign up for any extensive technical support from the engine manufacturer. Fly better, fly Emirates - they have extensive technical support from the engine manufacturer with OnPoint. Plus, is it any wonder that Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Cathay Pacific, and more of the world's best airlines also happen to have most of their engines receiving extensive technical support from the engine manufacturers, be it GE or RR? Research it 🤔 And, yes, Singapore has OnPoint, and, yes, they did get that GE90 failure a few years back - but has anyone noticed that engine failures happen more frequently on engines without extensive technical support, than on engines with extensive technical support from the engine manufacturer? 🤔

[@sdfft820]

Just for comparison, North Korea maintains their Tu-134s and IL-62s and those planes fly reliably.

[@simondahl5437]

Flight Level 1-50? Pretty sure it’s 1-5-0…

[@flying.Lubomir]

It’s YT video, not ICAO exam.

[@simondahl5437]

@@flying.Lubomir. Of course. But seeing as they are an aviation channel

[@canisrigelm0627]

Why is everything happens to Air France’s b777 ….? Why not others 😅

[@kirilmihaylov1934]

It is always Air France

[@dchan19362]

And to know that I flew with AF a few days later on another 772. AF is a scary airline to fly with. But it’s fine if it flies back to CDG…that is the point of ETOPS.

[@JeanClaudeCOCO]

They are, they’ve had recents tragedies or near fatal instances far greater than other airlines of the same size. In July I flow with them and their 777-200 was falling apart. The plane was very badly maintained. It was the worst ride I’ve taken.

[@dwayneroccufort6871]

Boeng has lot of issues than airbus...thats why i preferred airbus f im going to trvel.

[@Blank00]

this type of incident is not Boeing’s fault

[@zaijiancelis]

It’s AF’s fault, their 777s are having issues, not anyone else

[@edwardwilcox6606]

@@zaijiancelis It`s not AF`s fault! They have many years experience with GE90`s & are not going to let an aircraft fly with a problem. As with anything mechanical you get faults from time to time whether its aircraft turbine or a car engine it`s just one of those things. Aircraft engine shut-downs are not uncommon, there was one last week on a United B787 well out in the Pacific flying for 1.5 hours on one engine & there will probably one next week.....it happens.

[@kirilmihaylov1934]

@@edwardwilcox6606 it is always AF . Remember 447

[@kirilmihaylov1934]

@@zaijiancelis it is always AF ....remember 447