Metal chunks hit cars in Toronto after Air Canada jet engine failure

An Air Canada Boeing 777 airplane was forced to make an emergency landing shortly after takeoff from Toronto's Pearson International airport after debris fell from the plane. NBC's Tom Costello reports.

Chunks of metal the size of a cellphone fell onto cars in a neighborhood near Toronto airport Monday, around the same time as an Air Canada Boeing 777 made an emergency landing, CBC reported.

The airliner, bound for Japan, suffered a failure in one of its engines shortly after takeoff from Pearson International Airport.


The plane dumped fuel before returning to Pearson, landing normally using one engine. No injuries were reported.

The aircraft is thought to be fitted with GE90 engines. (GE is part-owner of NBC Universal, which is joint parent company of msnbc.com).

At least four vehicles were hit by pieces of metal, according to Peel regional police Constable George Tudos, but there was no immediate confirmation the debris was from the plane.

“We believe it is, but it's not up to us — we're not the investigating body,” Tudos told CBC.

"As it [the plane] was traveling away from Pearson we had other complaints stating that debris, consisting of metal objects, was falling from the sky," he said.

On Twitter, residents near the intersection of Derry and Kennedy Roads in Mississauga were posting photos of a vehicle’s rear windshield that was apparently smashed by falling material from the plane, Canada's National Post reported.

CBC said there were 318 passengers and 16 crew aboard Flight AC001, which took off from Pearson at 2:10 p.m. ET and returned to make its emergency landing at 3:53 p.m. ET.

Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said the plane's crew requested the emergency landing shortly after takeoff.

A businessman who was on board the plane tweeted that passengers were told it was an engine overheating.

"Seems my plane fell apart! Luckily we managed to land it," Jason Flick tweeted, adding that the plane spent 20 minutes dropping fuel.

The passengers were given hotel accommodation overnight and were expected to resume their journey Tuesday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:

Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world

 

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3

So long as no other systems are damaged, it is no problem for one of these jets to land on one engine. This is a specific design criteria that they are built to meet for just this type of situation. They are lucky that the metal pieces coming out of the engine did not damage any other systems like hydraulics that control the flaps and other flight control surfaces. Is is also lucky that no one on the ground as hurt by the falling debris. In all, it sounds like the people on the plane got lucky and the safety features built into the plane worked as intended so they were able to make a safe landing. This could easily have turned into a major tragedy.

  • 25 votes
Reply#1 - Tue May 29, 2012 4:22 AM EDT

Lessons of UA Flight 232.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:30 AM EDT

I sure hope airlines world-wide are going to be pulling and thoroughly checking their GE90 engines!

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:48 AM EDT

They have to determine what failed first before doing any kind of maintenance check. You don't just pull engines off wing because somebody else had a failure.

  • 15 votes
#1.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:11 AM EDT

You're right, Wiley. The engine could have simply ingested something on the takeoff roll. GE90 engines have 10s-of-thousands of fault-free operational hours.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:24 AM EDT

Not only can they land on one engine, they can take off with just one

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 11:03 AM EDT

Here we go, ground all planes equipped with GE 90 engines because one failed. Engines fail from time to time. For what ever reason, most likely something ingested by the engine, a bird, runway debris, whatever. A failure of an engine now and then is nothing to be alarmed about. When they start failing routinely, as with the R-R engines lately, then you have a reason to question that particular engines reliability, endurance and safety. The GE 90 series engine have been in service for many years with very few failures due to non external causes.

  • 5 votes
#1.6 - Tue May 29, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

Just wondering why MSNBC used a photo in the article of an Airbus from Flight Simulator X. Its obvious that its not a real photo. The article is about a Boeing 777.

    #1.7 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:08 PM EDT

    Because MSNBC doesn't know, or care about, the difference. They think they can post anything they want and we, the gullible masses, will accept it as presented.

    • 1 vote
    #1.8 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:41 PM EDT

    Or maybe because the illustration is irrelevant to the case. Just like a drawing of a generic virus could be used for a piece about HIV.

      #1.9 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:48 PM EDT

      Truth Seeker - Live up to your handle.

      • 2 votes
      #1.10 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:58 PM EDT
      Reply

      Glad it didn't happen over the Pacific...

      • 4 votes
      Reply#2 - Tue May 29, 2012 5:28 AM EDT

      That really wouldn't have made any difference. Twin-engine planes are required to meet minimum extended time operation over water, single engine, or they can't fly that route.

      • 9 votes
      #2.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:27 AM EDT

      Toronto to Tokyo would have been over the Arctic. Depending on distance to another airport, they would have kept going or just turned around.

      • 1 vote
      #2.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:36 PM EDT
      Reply

      My only question is, where was this plane last serviced? Air Canada recently shut down most of its overhaul maintenance operations in Canada - laying off hundreds of professional aircraft tech's and mechanics across the country. Apparently, it's more "cost-effective" to have their planes serviced somewhere off-shore. Who is doing the AC maintenance work now and who oversees the quality of the work?

      • 19 votes
      Reply#3 - Tue May 29, 2012 6:29 AM EDT

      Harry

      My thoughts exactly .

      Cutting maintenance to fatten the bottom line is never a good idea . To much down time on the air craft to repair the damage, also the law suits from loss of life will bankrupt an air line . But greedy CEOs still think break down maintenance is cheaper than preventative maintenance . Those fools will never learn .

      bob

      • 6 votes
      #3.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 6:58 AM EDT

      Harry is right on the button. The greedy bastards are trying to save money and lay off all those who PROPERLY know how to maintain airplanes. From what I have heard most of the work is done some where in South America? 1/3 the wages. Not even 1/4 of the quality. Personally I will not get on a plane.

      • 6 votes
      #3.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 7:57 AM EDT

      Hah, I had a feeling the socialist moonbats were going to jump to conclusions long before any details of this case are known. Of course, had this been a state run airline such as Aeroflot, which has an appauling safety record, they would be nowhere to be found.

      • 5 votes
      #3.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:20 AM EDT

      What in the hell does this have to do with socialism? I love how the Republican Tea Party groups blames everything on socialism and ignores how well Germany and the other socialist countries of Northwestern Europe are doing versus the USA

      • 7 votes
      #3.4 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:31 AM EDT

      Air Canada is a very nasty airline. They hate their passengers and they hate their workers almost as badly. They will do nothing for a passenger weeks a head of their flight, I tried to get a seat assignment after forgetting to do it and they would not give me one as they set aside 20% of the seats for people that might buy one shortly before departure date (read here, they can charge someone way more for a seat)

      • 6 votes
      #3.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:31 AM EDT

      Aww, did Air Canada lose your luggage one time? As for not getting a seat assignment, an airline doesn't depart with an empty seat if there's someone right there who has, presumably, purchased a ticket and leave them behind. Were only center seats available and you refused to take it?

      There's more to your story methinks.

      • 1 vote
      #3.6 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:32 AM EDT

      Willy,

      Speaking of jumping to conclusions, why does someone speaking against socialism automatically have to be "Republican Tea Party groups"?

      • 6 votes
      #3.7 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:37 AM EDT

      Hmmm...You sound like a Union guy, Harry. Blame the 'Unskilled" techs before anything else is investigated to defend the $65.00/ hour wrench turner.

      • 6 votes
      #3.8 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:47 AM EDT

      I love how the Republican Tea Party groups blames everything on socialism and ignores how well Germany and the other socialist countries of Northwestern Europe are doing versus the USA

      What planet are you ON, Willy? Have you looked at any news coming out of Europe recently? Half the continent is in absolute financial meltdown, Germany is struggling to keep its s*** together while the rest of their neighbors go to hell in a handbasket and the Euro is about to fail.
      How's that socialism lookin' for ya?

      • 8 votes
      #3.9 - Tue May 29, 2012 11:12 AM EDT

      I am so thankful all on board landed safe, and that there was only material damage on the ground from debris falling from the sky. One thing i was wondering where was the fuel dumped, and how much enviromental impact was there from the fuel being dumped. I know why fuel is dumped, to make it safer to land the jet. Just asking.

        #3.10 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:01 PM EDT

        Sauve, your comment made me laugh. AC may not be great, but as an American who normally flies U.S. carriers, I'd take AC any day over our mainstream U.S. carriers. Free bags, televisions at every seat and drink service, when most U.S. carriers only offer drink service at best?

        I agree with Jet: it sounds like there's a bit more to your story.

        • 2 votes
        #3.11 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:02 PM EDT

        Not more to the story. Every time I use that airline they act like that. Flying from Victoria to Vancouver you get there a hour ahead of time and there is space on the next flight instead of waiting for yours, the only way your getting on that earlier flight is if you pay $75. I used air miles to go from Victoria to Thailand, they booked me from Victoria to Vancouver on one day and from Vancouver to Thailand 17 hours later? When contacted they said yes there are flights the morning of the flight to Thailand and there is space but I did not pay for my ticket so there was nothing they could or would do. the list from friends f mine goes on and on.

          #3.12 - Wed May 30, 2012 9:50 PM EDT
          Reply

          Lucky for everyone that the metal pieces were small.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#4 - Tue May 29, 2012 6:44 AM EDT

          I would imagine that those chunks that were the size of cell phones were actually the vanes inside of the engine's fan that were falling. I pity the anyone that gets hit by that debris. Luckily no one did. Thankfully, this engine failure happened immediately after take off. That engine can't be very old if it's on a 777.

          • 3 votes
          Reply#5 - Tue May 29, 2012 6:58 AM EDT

          The first 777s entered service in 1995

          • 3 votes
          #5.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:28 AM EDT

          Not old at all in terms of planes.

            #5.2 - Wed May 30, 2012 5:03 PM EDT
            Reply
            Comment author avatarWilliam Coopervia Facebook

            What you want to bet the people who had their vehicles damaged won't be reimbursed for the damage especially considering how greedy airlines have become. I know I'm just speculating but as you'll see if you read the whole article thouroughly there is not a single mention that those people will be reimbursed for the damages caused to their vehicles. Knowing the the greed with airlines they will probably say they aren't accountable or liable for the damages. If it was my car I'd be suing

            • 1 vote
            Reply#6 - Tue May 29, 2012 7:03 AM EDT

            meh...the article is a copy/pasta of a tv news story; as such, it's pretty thin in details. I wouldn't assume much of anything based on this article.

            • 1 vote
            #6.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:00 AM EDT

            I would assume that GE-NBC thinks Boobus Americanus is dumb as a bag of rocks with limited reading comprehension skills.

            They'd be correct.

            • 3 votes
            #6.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:40 AM EDT

            William C, The damage is covered by ones car insurance carrier...who in turn will deal with the airlines insurance carrier.

            • 6 votes
            #6.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:27 AM EDT
            Comment author avatarWilliam Coopervia Facebook

            Either way Soviet I doubt they will be reimbursed

              #6.4 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:40 AM EDT

              WC, just what facts do you base this type of statement on?

                #6.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 1:50 PM EDT

                William Cooper

                You sound like the type of person that would sue for anything, kinda hard workin eh?

                  #6.6 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:42 PM EDT
                  Reply

                  Usually on an engine failure right after take-off it's typically something like a bird strike rather than an outright mechanical failure of the engine. Wouldn't surprise me if that ends up being the case here as well

                  • 7 votes
                  Reply#7 - Tue May 29, 2012 7:14 AM EDT

                  Nope. That was a compressor blade they showed. That is deep inside the engine. This a similar event to that A380 whose engine failed in Singapore. In this case, it seems the parts went down instead of up through the wing, a fortunate circumstance.

                    #7.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:42 PM EDT

                    Sorry Wahoo, the GE 90 is a high by-pass turbofan engine. The first stage fan blades are very karge and at the extreme front of the engine. they are tested for bird strike and are certified to withstand ingestion of a large bird without catastrophic failure. The fact that the engine was damaged to the extent indicated by the debris mentioned suggests that it ingested something substantial or it experienced internal failure. In either case, damage of this extent wil cause a serious disruption to fuel air combustion and a subsequent rise in Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) readings, thus the engine overheating comment.

                      #7.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:55 PM EDT

                      agree,some type of stress failure???,some unusual defect???, operations of aircaft not correct???,who knows,after all it took several deaths to find out that square windows on airplanes is a bad idea!!!.

                        #7.3 - Wed May 30, 2012 10:28 AM EDT
                        Reply

                        Did they just expect the debris to float into space?

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#8 - Tue May 29, 2012 7:46 AM EDT

                        Just wait till engine parts are made in CHINA.......................

                        2012 will look like the good ole days for aviation.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#9 - Tue May 29, 2012 7:48 AM EDT

                        They probably already are...

                          #9.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 12:56 PM EDT

                          Engines are still made here.

                            #9.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 1:59 PM EDT

                            I wonder what Jeff Immelt is doing about that?

                              #9.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 3:01 PM EDT
                              Reply

                              I wonder what caused the engine to fail? I remember seeing one of the tests they did on this engine to prove how strong the veins were. They spun the vein section up in a wind tunnel and then shot a 2x4 through it with an air cannon. very little damage to the veins but the 2x4 was shredded. Hard to believe till you see it in video. Anyone out there able to find a video of this test on youtube and post it? Would be interesting to see this again. Sounds like there might be a fault in the welding if this is what caused the failure. Just guessing at this point.

                              Anyway, very glad the plane landed safely and no one was hurt. Good plane. excellent pioloting.

                              • 2 votes
                              Reply#10 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:26 AM EDT

                              lostinmn,

                              There is no welding related to the assembly of the vanes to the rotor. The vanes are fitted into precision cut slots in a one-piece rotor.

                              • 2 votes
                              #10.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:34 AM EDT

                              Just a nit, but I think you mean vanes not veins

                              • 1 vote
                              #10.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:27 AM EDT
                              Reply

                              Okay... srsly... this is headline news because it's FIRST time this have ever happened? Puh-leaze...

                                Reply#11 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:37 AM EDT

                                I'd like to know just where they dumped all of that jet fuel.

                                Just like engine parts, that fuel would have had to land somewhere !

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#12 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:42 AM EDT

                                They dumped it into the air. It evaporates before it reaches the ground.

                                • 5 votes
                                #12.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:22 AM EDT

                                so we eventually get to breathe it in...nice...

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:59 AM EDT

                                Sylvia, no you breathe air, the fuel breaks down as it evaporates into the same things already in the air you breathe. Dont forget fossile fuels are actually a natural substance.

                                • 4 votes
                                #12.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 11:06 AM EDT

                                [Adam and eve] electric or battery?

                                  #12.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 6:23 PM EDT
                                  Reply

                                  Thank you for that info singbiker, I thought they were welded, but now I see that if that all that extra metal added from welding would throw the veins so far out of balance it would vibrate itself apart.

                                  I'm still looking for that test video of the 2x4 going through the front of the engine, no luck finding it though.

                                    Reply#13 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:44 AM EDT

                                    You should look at this. GE Bird strike tests.

                                    It is good

                                      #13.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 3:13 PM EDT
                                      Reply

                                      Sorry to post so much but I found a video of a 777 engine test. at about halfway through the video they shoot a chicken through the veins. not the video I was looking for but still interesting.

                                        Reply#14 - Tue May 29, 2012 8:53 AM EDT

                                        I think you mean fan blades and not "veins".

                                          #14.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:03 AM EDT

                                          I think he meant "vanes" which would be correct.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:39 AM EDT

                                          there are both vanes and blades in an engine. it alternates between a row of blades and a vane row, which are usually 2 half round pieces making up the circumference of the rotor. the purpose of the vane is to prevent swirling of the air so that it will compress to create the thrust.

                                            #14.3 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:44 PM EDT

                                            the pieces in the picture are definitely blades. i can see the roots of the blades.

                                              #14.4 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:50 PM EDT

                                              There are two sets of airfoils in a jet engine, blades and vanes. Both are present in the compressor as well as the turbine assemblies. Blades comprise the rotating airfoil and are attached to the compressor and turbine rotors. Vanes are static airfoil assemblies and are usually attached to the compressor or turbine housing.

                                                #14.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 3:19 PM EDT

                                                also known as stators.Or to be more precise, one row of rotors with one row of stators = one stage.

                                                  #14.6 - Wed May 30, 2012 10:41 AM EDT
                                                  Reply

                                                  Everybody finding pieces of plane should sale them on Ebay. Might as well make some money. When it rains, it pours. Airplane pieces in this case.

                                                    Reply#15 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:06 AM EDT

                                                    sorry, can't post the link, but on youtube it is listed under 777 engine test.

                                                      Reply#16 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:25 AM EDT

                                                      A wonderful bit of writing, "a vehicle’s rear windshield that was apparently smashed." A vehicle only has a windshield in the front. It is made of safety glass, the WINDOWS are made of tempered glass and that would include the rear WINDOW. Yeah its getting technical, but then the whole article is should be written with a technical bent as it covers an aircraft engine failure.

                                                      • 5 votes
                                                      Reply#17 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:27 AM EDT

                                                      i could be wrong, but i am under the impression that the windsheild is laminated glass, which is different from safety glass. safety glass in the glass in the side windows, which breaks into a million little unsharp pieces. that would not be good for a windshield, which takes a lot of abuse. safety glass was a big step forward at a time (the '20s i think) when auto glass was regular tempered glass. huge deadly shards were part of every accident.

                                                        #17.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 12:52 PM EDT
                                                        Reply

                                                        The former Northwest airlines started farming maintenance oversseas about thirty years ago. Cheap labor gets cheap maintenance and safety goes right out out the window. Not exactly sure what Fed department, but in the USA all mechanics had to meet strict requirements and the maintenance was overseen by the Feds.

                                                        I take Amtrak when I travel. More comfortable and less hassle, plus, one does not face the possibility of dropping like a rock from 40,000 feet.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        Reply#18 - Tue May 29, 2012 9:49 AM EDT

                                                        Amtrak can be more comfortable and hassle-free. But when you're going to Japan, as this plane was, it ain't gonna work out for you.

                                                        • 5 votes
                                                        #18.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:47 AM EDT
                                                        Reply

                                                        This has to do with CONSERVATIVES in government and big business and their AUSTERITY IDEOLOGY. CUT all programs to make the BOTTOM LINE and the UPPER CLASS GET GREEDY RICHER !!!!!!

                                                        The Mentality of not caring for human life, and or the lively hoods of the lower classes.

                                                        TEA-SHYSTERS and RECROOKALINS pure and simple. ROMPNEY YO-YO STYLE !!!!!

                                                          Reply#19 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:00 AM EDT

                                                          You have no idea what you're talking about. Nowhere did it mention anything about cause or even causal factors.

                                                          Check the gauge on your head because you're down a few pounds in air pressure.

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          #19.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:37 AM EDT

                                                          Wow such underlying anger. I don't know where you get all your information, but with this seemingly one-sided post you made, it is clear that you are not a thorough thinker, but someone who propounds without truly understanding. What a waste of emotional energy on your part. I certainly hope that with maturity will come deeper thinking on your part.

                                                          • 2 votes
                                                          #19.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:38 AM EDT

                                                          Alain, thank you for informing us that the tea party is now in Canada. As this is an Air Canada plane, it seems that you have found proof that supports your unique statement.

                                                            #19.5 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:00 PM EDT

                                                            adam, I would like to know why people like you who disagree with some one always tells them to get a job. Do you really think the people on the left do not work? Only righties work? Get real and get some new insults.

                                                              #19.6 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:06 PM EDT

                                                              Alain

                                                              Your little aluminum cap is on to tight again. You need to slack up on the restaints so some blood will make it to what is left of your tiny brain.

                                                                #19.7 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:50 PM EDT
                                                                Reply

                                                                Obama has assured everyone that Jeff Imelt, CEO of G.E.,assured him that the plane was built during the Bush administration.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                Reply#20 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:05 AM EDT

                                                                It very likely was.

                                                                  #20.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:27 AM EDT

                                                                  The GE90 engine was released in 1995, in Clinton's administration. Mr. Obama lied to you.

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  #20.2 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:57 AM EDT
                                                                  Reply

                                                                  Hey Matt Liar, did you see a plane circling the building on this one?

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  Reply#21 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:07 AM EDT

                                                                  It's always a battle for a pilot when he/she believes a plane should be grounded. Just ask one. You would think that this is one industry where corporate greed would not be tolerated.

                                                                    Reply#22 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:20 AM EDT

                                                                    One could argue that airlines should pay to fly over your house...through your "airspace" if you think about it...when you buy a house you do own to the center of the earth and to the Heavens above...

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    Reply#23 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:31 AM EDT

                                                                    DiettrichtheKaiser=

                                                                    Better check your property title, deed, or abstract. At least in Minnesota, the Rail Road and the state owns much of the property and mineral rights, As far as I know much of the country is divided up that way. Between the industry giants of yesterday and the governments middle finger, the property you do buy is basically a lease from the government. People don't actually get to own their property. It all depends on if you got something they want.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #23.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 12:38 PM EDT

                                                                    I wouldn't brag too much on it,your property tax will go up!!!,have your house look like poop on the outside but be a palace on the inside,oh yeah and keep your curtains drawn so the assessor cant see in,cheap taxes while living in luxury.

                                                                      #23.2 - Wed May 30, 2012 10:09 AM EDT
                                                                      Reply

                                                                      DO WHAT!!! You are kidding, why are planes going over highways anyway?

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      Reply#24 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:33 AM EDT

                                                                      Should they go around them? Have you ever been out of your own little berg?

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #24.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 2:00 PM EDT

                                                                      well duh!!,when you spend so much time in the air flying from one place to another,sometimes you forget where you parked your car!!!,maybe the pilot is just looking for an apartment to rent , or the quickest route to work???, whats wrong with multitasking???.

                                                                        #24.2 - Wed May 30, 2012 10:20 AM EDT
                                                                        Reply

                                                                        Kudos to the crew for handling this emergency in stride - as they are trained to do. AWESOME!

                                                                        Catastrophic jet engine failures are extremely rare considering the number of flight hours flown in any given year.

                                                                        • 4 votes
                                                                        Reply#25 - Tue May 29, 2012 10:34 AM EDT

                                                                        The riskiest part of air travel is the cab ride to/from the airport...

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        #25.1 - Tue May 29, 2012 12:00 PM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.