Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ASA Emergency Landing At AVL  
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/...gency_landing_at_Asheville_Airport

Looks like a non-story, but it's good to see that it got down safely and that AVL flights are going out full!

Flight was ASQ280.


http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ASQ280

[Edited 2007-08-25 15:39:39]


"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRampGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Why didn't the flight continue on to ATL? Looks like it was half way there when it turned back?

User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting RampGuy (Reply 1):
Why didn't the flight continue on to ATL? Looks like it was half way there when it turned back?

My guess is that if the landing gear actually did have a problem, it wouldn't have been such a big deal if it happened at AVL, but it would have created major problems at ATL.



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting RampGuy (Reply 1):
Why didn't the flight continue on to ATL? Looks like it was half way there when it turned back?

I'm betting that in case the gear was stuck in the up position, they'd rather affect AVL operations versus major delays at ATL.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3543 times:

Quoting RampGuy (Reply 1):
Why didn't the flight continue on to ATL? Looks like it was half way there when it turned back?

The flight was in the air for only 31 minutes and never got more than 50 miles from AVL.

The "nose gear indicator" would that the gear did not retract safely/ completely since it was on takeoff and before the aircraft climbed out/ accelerated to climb speed.


User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 4):

The flight was in the air for only 31 minutes and never got more than 50 miles from AVL.

Well, the entire flight (AVL-ATL) averages about 34 minutes...



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 2):



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 3):

Great minds, eh Delta?  Big grin



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Another interesting EV situation is that 763 diverted 2 nights in a row. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ASQ763/history

User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 5):
Well, the entire flight (AVL-ATL) averages about 34 minutes...

That's at altitude and cruise speed. The plane never got 1/3 of the distance to ATL. It climbed no higher than 18,000 ft and may well have been around 10,000 ft most of the time. It stayed at or near 250-300 KTAS before turning back about 15 minutes into the flight.

With an incomplete gear retraction indication, they would not be able to accelerate to cruise speed.

It looks like they had spent 4 to 8 minutes at a level altitude before turning back.

They could have not had enough fuel on board for the entire trip to ATL - at low altitude and with the potential for the nose gear to be hanging out - the plane will burn fuel at a very high rate - though I doubt that.

What type of maintenance capability exist at AVL for this plane?

What was the weather that day? Any possibility of flying into rough weather would rule out completing the flight.

I doubt it was a decision based on possibly messing up airport traffic - AVL has one runway and ATL have five. ATL will be much more capable of dealing with a runway closure.

The crew obviously felt that it was a indicator issue and not a gear issue, because certainly if they felt the gear might collapse - they would want to be at an airport with the biggest emergency services and hospitals nearby. They could just as easily have diverted to CLT.

But that's all guess work - only the crew and ASQ dispatch knows the real reasons.


User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 8):
What type of maintenance capability exist at AVL for this plane?

As far as airline maintenance facilities, none. AVL does have a pretty large corporate jet and turboprop maintenance facility, though, so they may have been able to do some work.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 8):
What was the weather that day?

Here at AVL last night it was pretty clear. A few clouds, but clear for the most part. Earlier in the day, however, we had a pretty vicious thunderstorm and winds, but I don't think that would have affected ASQ280. Not sure about the weather in ATL.



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 6):
Great minds, eh Delta?

Yep!  silly 



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineGSPITNL From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 374 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

My Question to this is GSP would have been a lot closer then turning back to AVL and the operations are similar in traffic with the fact GSP has more.


Fly Delta - The Only Way To Fly! Silver Medallion Baby :)
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting GSPITNL (Reply 11):
My Question to this is GSP would have been a lot closer then turning back to AVL and the operations are similar in traffic with the fact GSP has more.

Maybe they wanted the passengers to be back at their origin, where most probably had cars rather than being stuck in Greenville if the plane couldn't take off again.

That's the only thing I can think of...



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineNW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 7):
Another interesting EV situation is that 763 diverted 2 nights in a row.

Thunderstorms affected operations in ATL both of these nights. Due to the short runways in APF, the CRJ is always weight restricted; therefore, minimum fuel is carried in order to accomodate maximum passengers (and by maximum, I mean 30-35, less on a very hot day). With thunderstorms impacting the area, airplanes were probably holding, and inbound flights from APF could not hold due to minimum fuel loads.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing At ABQ posted Sun Aug 5 2007 01:22:53 by ABQ747
Emergency Landing At EDI This Morning posted Mon Jul 30 2007 20:22:44 by Shuggie
Emergency Landing At SNN posted Sat Jun 16 2007 14:09:27 by GWYIRE
UA 77 Emergency Landing At LAX posted Thu Jun 7 2007 10:45:39 by Platinumfoota
AA255 Emergency Landing At O'Hare posted Fri Jun 1 2007 21:42:40 by CygnusChicago
Flyglobespan In Emergency Landing At YHM posted Fri Jun 1 2007 07:18:03 by RicardoFG
Qantas Emergency Landing At LAX? posted Wed May 2 2007 18:24:23 by Pilotdude09
Emergency Landing At MAN posted Sat Apr 14 2007 22:15:53 by Ferengi80
Emergency Landing At Kochi Airport posted Wed Apr 4 2007 09:57:57 by Meyvaert
DL Connection Emergency Landing At ATL posted Mon Apr 2 2007 19:22:51 by TLHFLA