Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC 773 Emergency Landing YYZ, 6 Tires Blown  
User currently offlineCYQL From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 86 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16601 times:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ir_can_090723/20090723?hub=Toronto

Must have been more serious than an indicator light to land heavy. Can Air Canada 773's dump fuel?

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16525 times:



Quoting CYQL (Thread starter):
Can Air Canada 773's dump fuel?

I thought all planes had to have the ability to dump fuel for that purpose?



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16469 times:

When multiple tires on the same main gear blow one usually finds that there was an anti-skid problem somewhere in the mix..

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16450 times:



Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 1):
Quoting CYQL (Thread starter):
Can Air Canada 773's dump fuel?

I thought all planes had to have the ability to dump fuel for that purpose?

Many aircraft have no fuel-dumping capability, including the 737 and A320 family. The 777 and other widebodies can dump fuel, although I have seen many reports of overweight landings on widebodies for reasons such as medical emergencies.


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2134 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16409 times:

Cool looking flight track courtesy of FlightAware.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlinePWMRamper From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 622 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16140 times:

Must've been a hell of a landing with all that weight...

And I don't think they can dump fuel over populated areas...


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16124 times:

Radio said because of potential weather it was best to land heavy and risk tires blowing than take time to deal with dumping of fuel which can take a while. I suppose no one wanted to deal with thunderstorms with a potential flap problem. In Toronto they fly out over Lake Ontario preferably to dump the fuel rather than over a populated area. There were strong thunder cells over the lake and just to the east. If I remember the charts correctly there is a racecourse track over the lake that is preferred. I have held there a number of times returning to YYZ from LGA or DCA.

User currently offlineCPHGuard From Denmark, joined Jun 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15787 times:



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 6):
Radio said because of potential weather it was best to land heavy and risk tires blowing than take time to deal with dumping of fuel which can take a while

It's not just blowing a couple of tyres. It's also about structural stress to the airframe and landinggear.

But of course, if they decide to land the plane for safety, they do so. But there could be a lot of reapir-costs involved.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6604 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15679 times:

All Boeing airliners can be safely landed at maximum take off weight assuming a gentle landing is done, without causing any damage and would not entail anymore than an overweight landing check by the engineers.

User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15560 times:



Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 8):
All Boeing airliners can be safely landed at maximum take off weight assuming a gentle landing is done, without causing any damage and would not entail anymore than an overweight landing check by the engineers.

I suppose an airbus can do this, too?

regards
musapapaya



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15303 times:



Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 9):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 8):
All Boeing airliners can be safely landed at maximum take off weight assuming a gentle landing is done, without causing any damage and would not entail anymore than an overweight landing check by the engineers.

I suppose an airbus can do this, too?

regards
musapapaya

Try the Maddogs - they are built like tanks and are structurally much stronger than their Boeing and Airbus counterparts. An overweight landing in a diesel ten is nothing  Smile



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineDBCC From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15052 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2):
When multiple tires on the same main gear blow one usually finds that there was an anti-skid problem somewhere in the mix..

Don't forget, an overweight landing is done at a higher speed than V1, so in many cases, it is a very high energy stop. Fuse plugs may have just functioned and the tires deflated.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15052 times:



Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 9):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 8):
All Boeing airliners can be safely landed at maximum take off weight assuming a gentle landing is done, without causing any damage and would not entail anymore than an overweight landing check by the engineers.

I suppose an airbus can do this, too?

Any aircraft with enough lift to get it off the ground has enough lift to lower it on to the runway gently enough not to cause damage - i.e. if it can climb at 1000 fpm, it can certainly descend at 10 fpm. The problems with landing above the MLW, as I understand them, are that much more care has to be taken to limit vertical speed and that stopping before the end of the runway may become more problematical.

In other words, it's not that an "overweight" landing will cause structural damage, it's that structural damage is more difficult to avoid and that has to be weighed against the risk of remaining in the air to dump fuel.


User currently offlineMax777geek From Italy, joined Mar 2007, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14887 times:



Quoting PWMRamper (Reply 5):
Must've been a hell of a landing with all that weight...

In all of my 777 overweight landings, I noticed that the configuration made the airplane nose up instead of making it hard on the ground. Of course those all happened in Flight Simulator 2004, when I was trying to land with full fuel load, how does that happens in reality ? Is is still possible to keep the nose up the right way ? (or that's the exact reason why, to keep it down, the landing becomes hard ? sounds reasonable to me)

Quoting PWMRamper (Reply 5):
And I don't think they can dump fuel over populated areas...

They can, that gets vaporized as long as I know.


User currently onlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14844 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 12):
Any aircraft with enough lift to get it off the ground has enough lift to lower it on to the runway gently enough not to cause damage - i.e. if it can climb at 1000 fpm, it can certainly descend at 10 fpm. The problems with landing above the MLW, as I understand them, are that much more care has to be taken to limit vertical speed and that stopping before the end of the runway may become more problematical.

Also keep in mind that the approach speeds will be much faster than normal. Had an overweight landing in YUL on a TS A310-300 (en route YYZ-MAN) and it was noticeably faster - fully loaded with 8+ hrs of fuel on board - the AC 773 would be even closer to the max I imagine.


User currently offlinePh-tvh From Netherlands, joined May 2001, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14468 times:

Problem with overweight landings is that you need a FAS so high, it can easely exceed the Max Tire speed.

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13277 times:



Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 14):
Also keep in mind that the approach speeds will be much faster than normal

Well, that would contribute to the points I mentioned, I think.  Smile


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12168 times:



Quoting C5LOAD (Reply 1):
I thought all planes had to have the ability to dump fuel for that purpose?

Don't generalize.There are exceptions.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 10):
are structurally much stronger than their Boeing and Airbus counterparts.

Thats a bold statement.Back it up  Smile
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11104 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
The 777 and other widebodies can dump fuel, although I have seen many reports of overweight landings on widebodies for reasons such as medical emergencies.

I think all 777s have fuel dump systems, especially 77Ws, as well as obviously 744s and A380. I think the same can be said of A340s. I think the A330 and 767 have optional systems. I think most of the narrowbodies don't offer it. The 757s I think had it as an option. Essentially, I think the higher GW the aircraft, the more essential the fuel dump system. That might be total conjecture, but I think that's somewhat accurate.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 10):
Try the Maddogs - they are built like tanks and are structurally much stronger than their Boeing and Airbus counterparts. An overweight landing in a diesel ten is nothing Smile

Except for that one test where the bloody tail ripped off!



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineCarmelo From Hungary, joined Sep 2005, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7295 times:



Quoting WestWing (Reply 4):

Really nice indeed.



Carmelo
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7144 times:

The flight left mid-evening. What I don't know is if they changed tires and checked the warning light and used the same aircraft or whether a new aircraft was substituted. I would imagine the aircraft would have to be carefully gone over before returning to service so I suspect a replacement was used. Maybe an AC employee can confirm.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7144 times:

The initial Transport Canada daily occurrence report entry covering the AC incident:

The Air Canada Boeing 777-333ER aircraft (operating as flight ACA031) had departed on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ) to Beijing Capital International Airport, China (ZBAA). The flight crew reported a flap malfunction after departure and declared an emergency. The flight crew advised that they would be returning to Toronto (LBPIA). ARFF services equipment responded. The aircraft landed on runway 23 at 2014Z and exited the runway at taxiway HOTEL. The aircraft is stopped on taxiway HOTEL at the holding bay for runway 05. The passengers were offloaded to the terminal via buses. Air Canada Maintenance staff were assessing the situation. Ops. impact -- none.


User currently offlineFlylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

It will be very interesting to know the details of this incident. I'm wondering if perhaps the pilots were concerned that the flap malfunction (what was the nature of this malfunction?) was a symptom of a potentially broader systemic failure. Whatever it was, they took decisive action, apparently deciding to land without dumping or burning off enough fuel to get below max landing weight.

If anyone gets hold of the final report, please post it.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineCYXUK From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6342 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21):
The flight crew reported a flap malfunction after departure and declared an emergency.

Clearly the pilots made the right decision and I am not questioning this, but does a flap failure warrant a full out emergency, where ARFF has to be dispatched, or was it not the flaps, and in fact that the aircraft was landing heavy.

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 14):
fully loaded with 8+ hrs of fuel on board

and try 13.5 hours.


User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 836 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5807 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 10):
Try the Maddogs - they are built like tanks and are structurally much stronger than their Boeing and Airbus counterparts.

Do you have a source for that? Please share it with us.


25 ScrubbsYWG : the pilots declared an emergency, so i would guess thats why ARFF was dispatched, as normal. They pretty much have to be there in case anything goes
26 Flylot : Ha love the caption: well I hope it was fuel.
27 Cschleic : If it's something like flaps not retracting properly, such as asymetric flaps, that's serious. Can make controlling the plane difficult.
28 Brilondon : If they could have dumped fuel they could have gone over Lake Ontario and dumped it. They probably had to get down quickly so they did not have time
29 Post contains links Alphaomega : I know on Airbus widebodies it is a customer option - if there is no fuel jettison system installed, it changes the max weights allowed in some cases
30 Iwok : I think I've heard that MD's can go to 100,000 cycles whereas 737's go to 40,000 cycles and 32X to 20,000 cycles. That would be good backup. Plus I'v
31 AVLNative : I am not superstitious but that time eerily reminds me of AF447...
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...
AC Jazz Emergency Landing At YVR posted Sat Mar 17 2007 03:28:49 by Amritpal
Jetsgo Emergency Landing @ YYZ 7/23 posted Sat Jul 24 2004 01:16:07 by Olympus69
AirTran AC Makes Emergency Landing posted Mon Feb 26 2001 17:13:12 by Golfhaus
Air Canada Emergency Landing At YYZ posted Thu Apr 16 2009 05:15:16 by Amritpal
AA 777 LHR-ORD Makes Emergency Landing In YYZ posted Sat Feb 2 2008 17:48:46 by Cedarjet
AC Emergency Landing posted Sun Nov 19 2006 16:14:55 by CO738
AC Flight Makes Emergency Landing At BWI posted Fri Aug 11 2006 01:21:46 by YEGer
TS A330 Emergency Landing In YYZ - Nothing Serious posted Sat Jan 22 2005 03:05:33 by CaptainGomes
Comair Emergency Landing At YYZ posted Thu Mar 4 2004 14:45:26 by BOAC707
United 767 Emergency Landing At Yyz? posted Thu Nov 7 2002 07:18:12 by Dvmpaunch