Planeguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1292 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
A friend was on this flight today and upon approach to LGA a cabin announcement was made that due to mechanical "problems" they could "not land." Now she is a very worried flyer, but did note the emergency response on the ground when they did finally land and felt that the landing was a bit slower than usual. She says the plane did taxi to the gate under its own power. She's done the approach to LGA plenty so would likely notice speed differences, though the situation might have had her feeling a touch off. I've reassured her that they crew did a professional job and got everyone into LGA safely.
I suspect gear or flap issues and they executed a go around - was only 30 mins late to the gate.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6137 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4093 times:
You can't really rely on what a passenger perceives the speed to be. If the aircraft were flying into a 30-knot headwind, that would decrease the "out-the-window-view" (ground) speed drastically.
But, you/she may be exactly right.
These things are typically indication problems- a gear unsafe light has triggered, or the FSEU (Flap/Slat Electronics Unit, assuming she was on a 737) has incorrectly concluded that a flap asymmetry condition exists, and has locked out the flaps.
So it never hurts to slow down, but the entire issue can probably be traced to a bad proximity switch, or even a fault in the PSEU (Proximity Switch Electronics Unit).
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3966 times:
Quoting Planeguy727 (Thread starter): I suspect gear or flap issues and they executed a go around - was only 30 mins late to the gate.
I'd more suspect a gear issue than a flap issue. If they couldn't get the flaps down to position 30 or 40, or had a "split flap" (an asymmetry) at flaps-15 (or less) the landing speeds would have been higher (faster) which contradicts your friend's observations of being slower, and with LGA's short runways, they'd probably have gone into EWR (longer runways, plus more MX resources).
As far as it being maybe an unsafe gear indication (did your friend happen to notice if the problem was announced after the gear was extended?), that's a possibility, I suppose. Flightaware shows COA1382 as a B735 yesterday, so that means there's a viewer for the MLG in the floor of the pax cabin. Did your friend happen to notice if the F/O came back into the cabin to use the viewer? If it was possibly an unsafe nosegear indication, the viewer for that is in the cockpit. Did your friend happen to notice if they did a fly-by of the tower?
Another possibility is that they were planning to land at flaps-30 but someplace close-in (after gear extension?) they got anti-skid inop. They'd need to re-run their landing data to see if they were light enough to comply with the restrictions, and may have gone around to have enough time to do so (either themselves, or coordinating with those who do that (I don't know how COA does their weights)). The winds at LGA around 1832's ETA were 36012, so with some headwind credit (landing on 04 or 31) applied and if the aircraft was light enough, maybe it was possible to land at flaps-40 with the anti-skid inop. If so, the flaps-40 might well explain your friend's sensation of a slower speed.
Just a guess as to what it was that happened, but whatever it actually was, you can definitely tell your friend that it was all handled professionally.
DualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3705 times:
Looking in SONIC it was a 737-500. I'd bet money that OPNLguy is correct on the anti-skid issue as that is the most plausible reason. In this case we'd go around, run the checklists, and add the appropriate penalties to the landing distance (we do it manually since we don't have the neato laptops that WN has). The kicker in this case is can the airplane depart LGA with anti-skid inop? Off the top of my head I figure a light -500 can land no problem even with anti-skid inop but as far as departing with a relatively heave -500, that needs to be looked at. I am sure part of the delay in coming back around would be to co-ordinate with dispatch and MX to see if the airplane can leave LGA. With EWR right there and MX available if the airplane cannot leave LGA, it makes more sense to divert to EWR to get fixed, then ferry the airplane to LGA after the fact.
JCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3663 times:
I was on a DL 727-200 from ATL and was told there were engine issues after we went around at Laguardia . When we landed there and there was absolutely zero equipment waiting (in fact, when we got to the gate, the a/c reverted to full emergency lights). Compare this to when I was on an AA MD-82 last April and we had a flag from 9/11 onboard, we had and we got a full water cannon salute.
MX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3575 times:
Quoting DualQual (Reply 4): Looking in SONIC it was a 737-500. I'd bet money that OPNLguy is correct on the anti-skid issue as that is the most plausible reason. In this case we'd go around, run the checklists, and add the appropriate penalties to the landing distance (we do it manually since we don't have the neato laptops that WN has). The kicker in this case is can the airplane depart LGA with anti-skid inop?
It was A/C 628, the autobrakes would not arm in any position. But there was no corresponding anti-skid fault.
LGA MX placarded the autobrakes inop and sent the A/C out. The anti-skid system was operating normally.