Cmckeithen From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6576 times:
This goes to show all that the flight crew is HIGHLY trained in emergency situations. Though the passengers onboard were concerned when I assume, the captain came over the pa and said "Folks we are getting a warning light that is telling us the nose landing gear is not extended....FA's prepare the cabin for a rough landing." I also assume the FA's told the pax's to "brace, brace, brace" right before touchdown and went through the proper emergency landing procedures with them.
Any way, those pax's were never in any danger. Just a rough landing.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5996 times:
>>>No actually they diverted to JFK due to the lenght of runways in EWR. No where near the size of JFK. So not diverted due to maintenance but rather length of runway.
Yeah, that's what the article -said- but EWR's runway lengths are plenty long enough for a nosegear-up landing. No doubt in my mind they went to JFK due to AA's larger presence at JFK (as far as customer service) and MX facilities...
Now, to be nasty, they could have landed at EWR, closed a runway, and put CO's EWR hub operation into a big delay situation. Betcha CO is -real- glad they went to JFK...
Bobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5967 times:
Hmm i wonder what the cause was?
Good do hear no one was hurt and everything was ok. Good idea on the pilots part to opt to the airport with the longer RW. If anyone could post the pilots names or have a way of finding out that would be great. I know of a lot of AA MD-80 pilots based out of DFW.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5909 times:
>>>Good idea on the pilots part to opt to the airport with the longer RW.
When "non-emergency" situations like these come up, the captain is in communication with his dispatcher, and they jointly decide where the best place to put the aircraft with respect to both MX and customer service. They may even have time (fuel permitting) to try some trouble-shooting efforts before going somewhere.
I say "non-emergency" in the context that the aircraft didn't need to land -immediately- due to something much more urgent like a fire. (In that case, that captain wouldn't waste any time talking to anyone other ATC to get an ASAP full-blown emergency landing at the nearest suitable airport). Absent that level of urgency, and assuming proper fuel onboard and sufficient runway lengths, a flight like this with a gear problem could have really diverted and landed almost anywhere. Whatever the eventual destination, it would have been an "emergency" landing once they got there, but just for the landing, not getting to the airport itself...
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5685 times:
>>>Just wondering, do EWR, LGA, ISP, HPN ever get emergency landings, or do they all go to JFK?
I doubt you'd see them at LGA and ISP, LGA due to runway length, and ISP due to the fact that not many folks fly there. HPN's runway is a litle on the short side. You'd more likely see a diversion like this in the NYC area go into JFK (as it did) or EWR (where it would have gone if it had been a CO MD80 instead of an AA MD80). Stewart (SWF) could have been an option too...
>>>Does the aircraft look repairable?
Absolutely! Some minor skin damage, but these things usually take only a day or two tp get back in service....
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16247 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5644 times:
EWR's runways are 11,000-12,000 ft, no problem.
The main reason no doubt for the JFK deversion was the 14,000 ft runway AND the large AA maintenance facility at JFK.
If they had landed at EWR, they would have had to borrow hangar space from either CO or UAL. It would be alot cheaper for them to just go to JFK, since there was nothing wrong with the "flight" aspects of the aircraft that would keep them from diverting to JFK.
CaptainStabbin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5509 times:
I think the diversion was because of runway choice rather than runway length. JFK has four runways, so if lands on one, they couldn't easily close it and use the other two or three. I believe the plane landed on 4R, which they were using this moring. The 4's were later closed and they switched to the 31's.
If they landed at EWR, they probably would have had to close one of the runways, which would have caused more delays than if they switched to JFK.
Bobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5258 times:
Could have been some of those mechanics that always sleep through there shift instead of doing a CORRECT B-check, or maybe it was no ones fault it was just one of those things that just happens. Oh well, hope no one looses there job over it.
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5219 times:
In a sense, it is a "crash-landing", but not the way the media portrays it. Crash Landing can deal from UA 232 to a flight without Nose-Gear.
Most, if not all aircraft that have Nose Gear Failures are returned to service within 3-4 weeks if that is all that was wrong. They disassemble the piece, repair it, repaint it, install the piece, and voila. I suggest you do some research on N2417F (Now N919AT) that made an emergency landing. They has N2417F back in service in 2 weeks, and I flew on it as N919AT in March 2003.