Sh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17721 times:
It might sound funny, but I'm happy to see a plane with that much damage that can still land safely. It gives me more confidence in all the planes I fly on.
And also, I'm glad that pilots can stay cool and take care of business with crazy warning lights and alarms going off when they lose an engine at a crucial time.
Did the pilot do a go-around (i.e., continue take-off, turn around, approach for a landing, then reject the landing and attempt again) with the warning lights, or did the pilot continue a take-off, turn around and come in to land?
if it was the former, I can understand why the FAA would be "steamed" ... if the latter, then I do believe that the pilot's actions were the correct ones*.
*I'm not in the aviation field, so don't know the finer points of things like this. Just trying to get things clear in my mind.
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
Basically the NTSB is noting that the nosegear failed to extend when the landing was attempted. NTSB Prelim. report doesn't explicitly state that a missed approach was, or was not, executed -- wording is ambiguous.
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
NEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16905 times:
Amazing pics of this damage.. Looks to me like all of the blast went downwards. I hate to think what might have been the outcome if it was more towards the fuselage or directly upwards towards the tail. Thankfully, this was not the case but makes you think...
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21369 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16223 times:
Quoting NEMA (Reply 16): I hate to think what might have been the outcome if it was more towards the fuselage or directly upwards towards the tail. Thankfully, this was not the case but makes you think...
But aren't the engines specifically designed so that an engine blowout points "away" from the aircraft? Isn't that part of their designed failure mode? I would hope that's the case, as you wouldn't want a "routine" engine failure, no matter how dramatic looking, to destroy the control surfaces and make the plane crash, right?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7296 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16220 times:
The initial report (which may have changed since) was that the left start valve malfunctioned and opened shortly after takeoff, causing the starter to spool up to a high rate of speed and fail. When the starter failed, in essentially exploded out through the engine cowling, taking out the generator, causing the fire, and compromising a portion of the hydraulic system.
During the emergency landing, the nose gear would not fully deploy due to the hydraulic system issue as a result of the engine failure/fire. They lowered the gear manually and did a go around/fly-by to ensure that the gear was lowered.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16173 times:
Quoting Sideflare75 (Reply 10): OK I'll bite. What makes the top one fake? Sure looks like the same plane to me
Although it was the same N454AA, the original "real" picture was shot 3 years ahead of the date of the fire on N454AA. Additionally, the real/doctored photo show the aircraft about to touchdown on STL's 12R, while the NTSB report indicates the flight with thefir landed on STL's 30L.
Cubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 396 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16089 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18): But aren't the engines specifically designed so that an engine blowout points "away" from the aircraft? Isn't that part of their designed failure mode? I would hope that's the case, as you wouldn't want a "routine" engine failure, no matter how dramatic looking, to destroy the control surfaces and make the plane crash, right?
Engines are designed for containment in the event of a catastrophic failure. Some things can't be designed totally fail safe. The CF-6 center engine failure on the UAL DC-10 was failure of the compressor disc. DL had a MD-88 turbine disc failure on takeoff out of Pensacola where several pax were killed. CO had a DC-10 engine overspeed (caused by the crew) that sent shrapnel through the fuselage and killed a pax. Designers and manufacturers shoot for 100 percent. Occasionally, they don't quite make it.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3451 posts, RR: 48
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16031 times:
Quoting FXramper (Reply 15): The whole things is screwy. I read the only thread, not much more stated so far...
The unofficial story within AA pilot ranks (AA's "official" position is that the "incident" is being "investigated") is that the starter valve (placarded so a mechanic had to manually open/shut this valve) wasn't fully closed after start, the Start Valve Open light was not illuminated after engine start (should have been), therefore the starter spun essentially out-of-control during takeoff and "blew" shortly thereafter causing the fire. Engine Fire light properly illuminated and crew followed proper procedures, but fire continued (nacelle would not hold extinguishing agent for obvious reasons).
There were other problems (I don't recall all) including the DC Bus-Tie not closing so they did NOT have the emergency instruments they would normally have (as in all simulated situations) along with the nose gear indicating UNSAFE when attempting the first emergency landing (nose "pin" not extended). A go-around was initiated and the subsequent emergency landing completed successfully (gear lowered by alternate means). FAA (individual?) is upset due to the go-around with an active fire indication (IMHO: Captain's Emergency Authority so FAA is upset they can do nothing legally... I think I would have just landed, but that is me talking about it and I wasn't the CA on this flight) and didn't evacuate the plane after stopping.
Possible (strong rumors) individual FAA person(s) upset because they may(?) have "tested" the landing gear WITHOUT company/union/manufacturer/etc. representatives present and claim there was no problem with the gear indications --even stronger rumors that such test was invalid as the plane was not configured as it was on the incident flight, but when found out what was going on and properly configured the same as the incident flight.... the same problems occured: No DC Bus-Tie, nose gear unsafe indication, etc. These "individual(s)" were "shown-up" by "others"???
Lots of "stories" floating around the AA pilot rumor mill, but that's the basics that seem to be repeated in ALL the stories I've heard so far. Along with rumors of whom one "FAA individual" may be and why he/she may be "out to get 'those AA' pilots."
In the end, a highly unusual multiple emergency situation where there are no specific procedures in any manual and the Captain used his discretionary authority to make decisions that ultimately led to a safe landing with no injuries. Some may disagree with his decisions, but that's why there is Captain' Emergency Authority... it was HIS decision(s) to make.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2200 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15382 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 23): starter valve (placarded so a mechanic had to manually open/shut this valve) wasn't fully closed after start, the Start Valve Open light was not illuminated after engine start (should have been), therefore the starter spun essentially out-of-control during takeoff and "blew" shortly thereafter causing the fire.
Shouldn't this have been an indication to the crew to not take-off and perhaps avoid the whole incident?
Quoting Cubastar (Reply 22): Engines are designed for containment in the event of a catastrophic failure. Some things can't be designed totally fail safe.
Not to nitpick, but I think the over-speed incident was National.
There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
: Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..
: Technically, an MD80 is a DC9-80. That's what the type certificate says anyway. EDIT: To be more specific, there is no specific model known as an MD8
: MD80's are DC9's! The original designation for this series of aircraft was DC-9-81,82,83 etc.
: The starter valve/light on this AC was deferred for 10 days before it malfunction after Take Off and cause MAJOR problems for this crew. This crew did
: Interesting. Many of the starter motors I have seen have a really thick ring of material surrounding the air turbine to contain failure. I guess this
: Yes and No.....The DC9 series includes the 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 81, 82, 83 and 87.....The MD-88, MD-90, anmd MD 95-30 (B717) are what the what the off
: Kudos on the crew for their actions. Just a reminder, though, the FAA and NTSB may not be hot under the collar, it's just they have to do their jobs o
: Come on guys, its all ball bearings these days!
: I should have CAPITALIZED the words "NOT ILLUMINATED"??? If the light was NOT on, how would the crew know not to take-off? FWIW, the light is above t
: First off, calm the heck down. I am not the FAA, nor am I out to get you or your friends. This is a forum, we have discussions. Better? Okay. I don't
: I was sitting on the pad waiting for my gate to open up. I watched them do the go around with the mains down and the nose up. The left engine was unus