Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emergency Landing And Fire At Trudeau Airport YUL  
User currently offlineRickYHM From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 140 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 8578 times:

Quote:
Emergency landing and fire at Trudeau Airport YUL
2007-09-24 08:14:43
WWW.940MONTREAL.COM

An Air Canada jet leaving for Calgary declared a mechanical emergency and made a forced landing a Trudeau Airport last night. The landing gear of the Airbus A320 caught fire but Airport firefighters were quick to extinguish the flames. 121 passengers, 5 crew members were safely evacuated, and no one was injured. An investigation is underway.



Anyone have any more info on this?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 8479 times:

Change the headline ... it's overly sensational.

User currently offlineCuriousFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 694 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 8432 times:

Yes please, nothing happpened, change the headline!

User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 8349 times:

why? there was a fire, and an emergency landing....what else can it be?


The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3642 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8019 times:

"Emergency Landing at YUL"


PHX based
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 3):
why? there was a fire, and an emergency landing....what else can it be?

Because in general people will think it was a cabin/flight deck/cargo fire first, not something external like the landing gear.


User currently offlineGreenair727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7721 times:

Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7607 times:

Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?

It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.

Tom.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26495 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7558 times:

Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies

The A320 is not a heavy



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems

You're making an assumption that this was a landing gear problem, that hasn't been established yet!

A landing gear fire like this (if it was a fire!) could well be caused by landing back overweight and at high speed and the brakes then overheating. All that the press release says is that it returned with a mechanical failure - could have been an engine, or several other things!

Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
(such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off)

This was a well publicised (& televised) event. I can recall an event some years ago, where a 737 landed in the US with the starboard main gear retracted (also televised) Landing gear related incidents are extremely rare on all certified transport a/c, and are usually caused by external events, such as overweight landings, rather than mechanical issues.

I flew A319/320s for 4 years, and had a couple of BSCU problems (Brakes & Steering Control Unit). The gear and steering on the A320 are more electronically controlled than in the 737. Apart from that, I had no problems with the ldg gear/brakes or steering nor my confidence in them!

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 1):
it's overly sensational.

I agree, especially if the 'fire' was as I suspect above!

Cheers
 Smile



Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlineStarCityFlyr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6751 times:

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 9):
This was a well publicised (& televised) event. I can recall an event some years ago, where a 737 landed in the US with the starboard main gear retracted (also televised) Landing gear related incidents are extremely rare on all certified transport a/c, and are usually caused by external events, such as overweight landings, rather than mechanical issues.

This was a US Airways 737 that landed in GSO because a wheel chuck was stuck in the landing gear. The plane made a safe albeit bumpy landing without injury to passengers. Made for great TV footage though and clearly demonstrated the outstanding training that pilots and co-pilots receive in handling emergency situations.


User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Quoting Greenair727 (Reply 7):
Either the A320 has more landing gear problems (such as the front wheel deploying 90 degrees off) than other heavies or such problems they make the news more frequently. Does anyone have any statstics that compare the rate of landing gear issues by equipment type?

It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.

Tom.

Really? If you say so...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0588609/L/

A5XX



we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5142 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
The A320 is not a heavy

Really, try lifting one.  Smile


User currently offlineOTOPS From Canada, joined May 2007, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5111 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 5):
Because in general people will think it was a cabin/flight deck/cargo fire first, not something external like the landing gear.

Just because you jumped to conclusions doesn't make it untrue.



Airbus-A name that manages to make aviation sound uncool.
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 5):
Because in general people will think it was a cabin/flight deck/cargo fire first, not something external like the landing gear.

What "general public"? Not this general public.

I think some of you guys worry too much about nothing. Let the guy call his post whatever he likes.

Goodness.



Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineJerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4566 times:

Hey, the original post called it as it was reported... and emergency landing and a fire that was extinguished. What's wrong with the title of the thread saying what was originally reported?

Also, a lot of folks on this net have quite a "ho-hum" attitude about "emergency" calls such as this... mostly folks who have been around the tarmac a couple of times and have pretty much "seen it all". Not all of us have had the same experiences and so what may seem like an everyday thing to some really is perceived as an "emergency" to others. Let each have their own opinion...



"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 726 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

It was apparently a hydraulic problem.

Beech


User currently offlineATHYEG333 From Greece, joined Jun 2007, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3510 times:

Two incidents for AC in YUL and YYZ within a couple of days!
Not a good week for them!


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3472 times:

Quoting ATHYEG333 (Reply 17):
Two incidents for AC in YUL and YYZ within a couple of days!
Not a good week for them!

It happens, but nobody got hurt, nobody ran to the media with horror stories so people couldn't have been that scared, and both birds will fly after some maintenance. No big deal really.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 16):
It was apparently a hydraulic problem.

If that's correct, then it was likely to be a flaps-up landing. And as a consequense overheated wheel brakes and burning rubber.

Pure speculation of course, but not unlikely.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineATHYEG333 From Greece, joined Jun 2007, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3316 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 18):
It happens, but nobody got hurt, nobody ran to the media with horror stories so people couldn't have been that scared, and both birds will fly after some maintenance. No big deal really.

I agree, I know that such incidents always occur!


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 11):
It's physically impossible for a Boeing nosegear to fail that way, so that automatically eliminates a big chunk of the fleet. The tradeoff is that Boeing nosegear can't swivel as far.

Tom.

Really? If you say so...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0...09/L/

The original post I was replying to was that the nosegear turned 90 degrees. You can see clearly that the nosegear in the picture you posted is not turned 90 degrees. The nosegear linkage on a Boeing can't turn 90 degrees without physically breaking two separate hydraulic actuators.

Tom.


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...
ABQ: Fire And Threats At The Airport posted Mon Nov 3 2003 15:10:11 by Bistro1200
Explosion And Fire At Lagos Nigeria Airport posted Thu Nov 21 2002 17:55:12 by JFKTOWERFAN
Fire At CPT Airport posted Sun Nov 26 2006 11:51:11 by A390
Emergency Landing - DL 757 At AMA posted Sat Jul 15 2006 21:25:56 by Garri767
Fire At Vancouver Airport? posted Sat Dec 31 2005 03:51:52 by Boeing764
Emergency Landing For BWIA At JFK? posted Mon Sep 20 2004 16:02:13 by Jetblue15
Delta Emergency Landing/engine Fire Last Night? posted Tue Aug 24 2004 16:16:28 by Capicuuu
Pakistan Intl A310 Emergency Landing (cabin Fire) posted Wed Aug 20 2003 21:03:31 by DLH404
Fire At Logan Airport posted Tue Sep 24 2002 16:57:59 by National_757
Engine Of A SAS Jet Caught Fire At Kastrup Airport posted Mon Aug 13 2001 13:17:28 by Asgeirs