Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA MD80 Emergency Landing Mon 8/4  
User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 631 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

Apparantly an AA MD-80 lost an engine on takeoff from LGA and had to make an emergency landing at JFK...heres a link to the story...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...island/ny-liair0805,0,761276.story

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

I thought the engine fell off, when you said "lost an engine". Lost as in 'mislaid'....

In fact, an engine failure on departure caused an immediate landing at JFK. The 'pilot' (aren't there two of them?) got everyone back safely, and it's a miracle.

Quote:
from newsday.com article:
"It was obvious that it was trying to climb but was unable to, flying directly over my head," Engel said early Tuesday. "I watched as he was pulling out to Long Island Sound. That plane was limping at a very low altitude. I watched until he went out of sight. I was very afraid."

I just wonder - how does Mr Engel know? He's in his apartment building, watching an airplane reduce angle of attack to increase airspeed, and thus assumes that he's 'unable to climb' and 'limping at a very low altitude'.

Media reporting of these events is truly fascinating......


User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

lost the thrust/use of an engine...

User currently offlinePlateMan From United States of America, joined May 2007, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

From that same guy quoted above: "They could hear other people screaming because they were certain the jet was going to crash, he said"

"It was scary," said McLoughlin, a controller for 22 years. "We're sitting watching this guy struggling to altitude ... going over the Bronx, then his path back over Queens, over the Sound, skirting Nassau County southwest of Lake Success.""
-----------

For your airplane experts, is an MD-80 losing an engine really that serious? Sure, it's not ideal, but the paper makes it seem like the plane was bound to crash...is it really that hard to gain altitude?

And if so, why divert to Kennedy, when you are forced to fly over populated Queens and Nassau County? Why not shorter-runway LGA??

Cheers
Brian



"Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
User currently offlineCaptSeth From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

I observed this aircraft flying by my neighborhood at 700' with the gear down, and I was concerned he was going to crash. http://www4.passur.com/lga.html Enter 1640 local time and click on the aircraft that departs RWY 4 at LGA. You can observe ground track and altitude as he charges over Great Neck Estates. Quite the show.

The problem was the gear being down - we don't know if this crew suffered an air/ground sensing problem in addition to the engine failure, but I felt, as someone with some experience in the field of airline flying, that a terrible accident was imminent. I'm glad that he brought it around to JFK and landed safely, but am VERY interested in the details concerning the landing gear position.


User currently offlineAluminumtubing From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

There will be the usual dramatics with regard to this incident. However, while the MD80 is not the most powerful aircraft, it is more than capable of handling the loss of an engine on takeoff. The procedure calls for leveling off at 600 feet to allow the aircraft to accelerate and clean up before continuing to climb. So while to the news media and uninformed, it would appear that the aircraft was "too" low and about to cartwheel into the ground in a horrible disasterous accident, (I love the media) it was actually doing what it was supposed to do. As for the gear remaining down....If it in fact was, it could be due to the fact that the gear is raised by the right hydraulic system on the MD80 and the system could have been affected by failure of the right engine which was the engine which apparently failed. All in all, the crew did a great job doing just what they are paid to do.
The MD-80 is a superb aircraft even today. With AA flying 300 of them over 10 hours a day, incidents are bound to happen. With 14,000 hours in the left seat of the 80, I have only had two engine failures and one was caused by foreign object damage not even related to maintainence or MD-80 reliabitlity issues.


User currently offlineCaptSeth From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

I agree that media reporting of aviation is usually atrocious, but as I was an eyewitness to some of this I can say with authority that an accident was narrowly averted. He was very low, he was very slow, and he had a high angle of attack, on one engine, with the gear down, and chose to fly over a populated area instead of stopping his turn while he was aimed up the sound. Eventually, he got it climbing back up to 1,900 or so, right around the Gowanus canal area, before he turned back towards the five towns to land on 31 at JFK.

How was he able to get it to climb, eventually, after limping along below 1,000 for so long? Did he finally get the gear up? Did he suffer multiple failures in addition to the right engine, so that the backup (I'm assuming there is a PTU or some similar system to a Boeing) to the gear retraction system was inoperative? Why do S-Turns over Queens instead of proceeding over the sound on a crystal clear day when you can plainly see where you are going? A direct line to JFK would have been a better option than his low altitude tour.

That being said, I know we are all aware that "monday morning quarterbacking" of this near - disaster won't help anyone, but I will be attentively looking for the NTSB report on this one as soon as it comes out. I'm no fan of most of the narrowbody fleet these days, and I'm glad I never had to fly an MD-80 as I find the cockpit to be claustrophobia-inducing, not to mention ergonomically bizarre from a systems standpoint - but if these things are going to be whizzing by my window with any regularity I want them to get to the bottom of what happened fast, even if it means accelerating the retirement of the type. I bitterly despise the B737NG, but I venture that what happened yesterday at LGA would not have been an issue in the Boeing.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2878 times:



Quoting CaptSeth (Reply 6):
I agree that media reporting of aviation is usually atrocious, but as I was an eyewitness to some of this I can say with authority that an accident was narrowly averted.

Whilst I appreciate that you're a Boeing driver, can you really say with 'authority' that an accident was narrowly averted? I mean, do you know what was going on in the flightdeck? I doubt you know any more than the rest of us, and are merely speculating.

It appears as though the crew followed procedure, leveled off to gain airspeed, then continued the climb. We don't know what was going on in the airplane and we also don't know what other issues the crew may have faced.

A 737NG with an engine out at low speed/altitude may well have encountered similar difficulties to the ones we assume this MD80 crew experienced.


User currently offlineGothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2839 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 7):
Whilst I appreciate that you're a Boeing driver, can you really say with 'authority' that an accident was narrowly averted?

It is not unusual to see a Mad Dog using 6500+ of the 7000 feet available on Runway 4 during their takeoff roll on a warm day with two engines, so this kind of event at LGA always has the potential for catastrophic results.


User currently offlineCaptSeth From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2809 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 7):
can you really say with 'authority' that an accident was narrowly averted?

Yes. Go ahead and have a look at his track on that link I provided. He was at low altitude for an excessive amount of time, and didn't break 1,000' until over Douglaston, N.Y. Before I lost sight of him I felt that there was a high likelyhood he would run out of airspeed and get on the back side of the power curve - especially with the gear down. I lost sight of him when he crossed Northern Blvd. WSW - Bound, and the gear had still been down. Regardless of the performance of the crew, the high drag, engine out, hot day, heavy load was damn near a catastrophe.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2793 times:

Quoting LHR777 (Reply 1):
I just wonder - how does Mr Engel know? He's in his apartment building, watching an airplane reduce angle of attack to increase airspeed, and thus assumes that he's 'unable to climb' and 'limping at a very low altitude'.

I can tell you're not from around here  

The landing and takeoff patterns around New York City are sprawled over the entire area and pretty much everybody in the city gets to know what the patterns are like around where they live. Even if a person doesn't know the actual details (ie. what a "bridge climb" actually is or whatever), after living somewhere in New York for a while, it's pretty obvious what's normal and what isn't. I think most people also instinctively realize that there's not a lot of room for interpretation given how busy the skies are.

Like this guy, I live near an airport (JFK) that gets takeoffs directly above every once in a while (from the 4's). Generally planes are at about 2,000 feet or so by the time they get to me. If I saw one that was only at 500-600 feet, with its gear still down and flying basically level, I would *know* something was wrong. That's *not* normal, and I'd be basing that on witnessing thousands upon thousands of takeoffs from the exact same runway in my time living here.

I don't think what this guy said was all that unreasonable, and guess what? He was right.

and btw, we're not "speculating" here. We have the account of the controllers involved, who said he was struggling to gain altitude. That's first-hand knowledge - it is his *job* to know what altitude the planes in his sector are able to fly, so he would know if this aircraft was able to gain altitude or not.

I do agree that the media often botch reporting of airline incidents, but that doesn't mean they do it *every* time. The reporting on this one does not seem very hyperbolic. Sometimes incidents actually are serious. This was a fully loaded MD-80 taking off from a short runway on a hot day with an uncontained engine failure on takeoff. That's bad news.

[Edited 2008-08-05 08:08:50]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineAluminumtubing From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2694 times:

Regarding the controller's comment as to the aircraft struggling to maintain altitude....That would be fairly obvious since the aircraft was relatively heavy and on one engine. While losing one engine on a two engine aircraft obviously reduces power by 50%, performance is reduced roughtly 80%. Apparently the crew maintained adequate control as they were airborne for just over 10 minutes. Since losing an engine at rotation is the most critical time for that to happen to an aircraft, it is a serious incident, however this type of event is not as rare as one would think. I will also be following the investigation closely.

User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2535 times:



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 10):
I can tell you're not from around here

You'd be right sir - although after 17 years of flying in and out of JFK/EWR, I have a fair idea. Funnily enough, I left EWR just about 27 hours ago.....

Quoting CaptSeth (Reply 9):
Yes. Go ahead and have a look at his track on that link I provided. He was at low altitude for an excessive amount of time, and didn't break 1,000' until over Douglaston, N.Y. Before I lost sight of him I felt that there was a high likelyhood he would run out of airspeed and get on the back side of the power curve - especially with the gear down. I lost sight of him when he crossed Northern Blvd. WSW - Bound, and the gear had still been down. Regardless of the performance of the crew, the high drag, engine out, hot day, heavy load was damn near a catastrophe.

Thanks CaptSeth, I do find your knowledge and information most insightful. You guys know the area better than us Europeans, so I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm sorry if it came across that way.  Smile


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...
AA MD80 Emergency Landing At IAD posted Thu Nov 30 2000 00:33:34 by Gocaps16
AA LAX Emergency Landing posted Tue Apr 22 2008 20:43:39 by Airlinerho
Dallas Cowboys AA 9404 Emergency Landing MSY posted Sun Sep 16 2007 00:17:28 by 71Zulu
AA 1354 Emergency Landing Ksdf posted Fri Feb 23 2007 07:13:26 by Xaphan
AA ERJ Emergency Landing In EVV posted Sat Apr 1 2006 18:19:13 by UPSMD11
AA Makes Emergency Landing In Abilene posted Fri Dec 16 2005 16:16:24 by Sleekjet
AA Makes Emergency Landing In Ord posted Wed Nov 3 2004 14:22:20 by Jetjeanes
AA B777 Emergency Landing @ YYT posted Sun Jul 7 2002 04:49:29 by AC_B777
AA 777 Emergency Landing At YYZ posted Sun Jul 7 2002 01:21:28 by Captaingomes
10PM Sunday: AA#92 Emergency Landing At Jfk!? posted Mon Nov 26 2001 04:20:07 by Bobcat