Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA172 JFK-BRU 22AUG Diverts To BOS  
User currently offlineflyawa From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 201 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

An American Airlines departure from JFK to BRU diverted to BOS after experiencing severe turbulence due to thunderstorms in the New York metropolitan area. Flight 172 landed safely at Logan International Airport at around 10:40 p.m. Sunday, 22AUG. American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith says there are no reports of injuries among the 159 passengers and 9 crew members on board the Boeing 757.

Why did this flight divert on climb out, if no injuries? Why did it not continue to BRU after vectoring out of weather? Were other departures affected, or re-routed around this weather? Did AA172 have to dump fuel? It must have been heavy.

Flightaware shows it entering heavy weather off Long Island, then circling on descent into BOS. Then it shows the flight continuing around 12pm next day BOS-BRU.


Better than most, not as good as some.
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMadDogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4751 times:

I would be curious to know the answer of why they diverted as well if there were no injuries.

FYI the 757 does not have fuel dump capabilities, so you are correct in that he would have landed heavy, which would necessitate an inspection on the ground.


User currently offlineflyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

I'll see if I can find anything out.

AA ORD

[Edited 2010-08-24 11:28:29]

User currently offlinejcarv From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

The severe turbulence caused "flight control problems" that the crew could not fix in air so they made decision to divert. Whether it was actual or just a caution message they couldn't clear. I've heard 2 versions. At any rate, the flight landed in BOS after declaring emergency due to situation and overweight landing. This was aircraft N177AN. The flight continued next day with N179AA.

User currently offlinedtw757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1593 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Interesting that the same flight cancelled the next day at JFK


721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,346,388,146,CR2,7,
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Quoting jcarv (Reply 3):
The severe turbulence caused "flight control problems" that the crew could not fix in air so they made decision to divert. Whether it was actual or just a caution message they couldn't clear. I've heard 2 versions. At any rate, the flight landed in BOS after declaring emergency due to situation and overweight landing. This was aircraft N177AN.

The flight encountered "severe turbulance" [that alone virtually assures a divert & required lengthy maintenance checks] with loss of FO's airspeed and altimeter [minimum 4 hour system check AFTER the test system is properly installed -- and that can take a few hours as well]. Also had "Assymetric elevator", "stab trim" and "rudder ratio" warning indications. Hmmm.... yep, all that would convince any pilot to divert immediately. Just to add insult to injury, they also saw a loss of all fuel indications in both FMCs --can't fly ETOPS without valid fuel calculation capability.

An overall bad day.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4304 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
loss of FO's airspeed and altimeter [minimum 4 hour system check AFTER the test system is properly installed -- and that can take a few hours as well]. Also had "Assymetric elevator", "stab trim" and "rudder ratio" warning indications.

Sounds like they lost a pitot tube or something.

The thing I don't really understand is why they took off into this in the first place. I know exactly which storm cell this was because it flew right over my house right after this (I read the first report of this diversion just a couple hours afterwards, and the cell was definitely memorable enough to remember it that long). It would have been very close to the airport and it sounds like there would have been no real way to avoid it without taking off and making an immediate sharp turn. I don't understand why they didn't just wait 10-15 minutes for it to pass.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineboeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
loss of FO's airspeed and altimeter [minimum 4 hour system check AFTER the test system is properly installed -- and that can take a few hours as well]. Also had "Assymetric elevator", "stab trim" and "rudder ratio" warning indications.

Sounds like they lost a pitot tube or something.

Pitot tube would account for the airspeed but not the altimeter problem, sounds more like a air data computer. In cases like this where the airplane hits severe turbulence or stuck by lighting we do a inspection card which inspects the airplane for defects and operates all the systems that would be affected by a lighting strike. This check takes about 10 hours to complete.

Per the Boeing Fault Isolation Manual 27-09-00 fig 103 the stab trim and rudder ratio messages can be caused by a fault in a RRCM Rudder Ratio Changer Module or it could be caused by a SAM Stabilizer Trim/Elevator Asymmetry Limit Module which is what I would go with because of the asymmetry message.

So this airplane left yesterday and has flown around with no problems related to the incident.

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4184 times:

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 7):
Pitot tube would account for the airspeed but not the altimeter problem

I was just recalling the two accidents related to blocked pitot tubes, in which the pilots lost airspeed and altimeters and were also getting rudder ratio warnings (though not stab trim or asymmetric elevator, that I remember).

Good thing this only happened on one side.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
The thing I don't really understand is why they took off into this in the first place. I know exactly which storm cell this was because it flew right over my house right after this (I read the first report of this diversion just a couple hours afterwards, and the cell was definitely memorable enough to remember it that long). It would have been very close to the airport and it sounds like there would have been no real way to avoid it without taking off and making an immediate sharp turn. I don't understand why they didn't just wait 10-15 minutes for it to pass.

Turbulance was first encountered at 13,000' msl. It had nothing to do with the take-off phase of flight.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineqqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2297 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

I spoke with one of the flight attendants onboard and she said all pax/crew were seated and belted. That certainly prevented injuries -- it's fortunate it hit when it did, and not ten minutes later when the crew would have been starting the service. The weather Sunday was certainly wicked. Fortunately, my flight to LHR left just under three hours late but proceeded without incident.


The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2399 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Notwithstanding this very event, the punctuality of this AA172 flight is just terrible, and certainly dropped further with the use of the 757. It's better to observe when this flight is on-time rather than late.

Delta is slightly better, certainly when they use the 767. But both are far behind CO and 9W which are the two others operators on the NYC-BRU route.

FB.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineLONGisland89 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 11):
the punctuality of this AA172 flight is just terrible, and certainly dropped further with the use of the 757

AA172 JFK-BRU service was launched with a 757.


User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4971 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LONGisland89 (Reply 12):
AA172 JFK-BRU service was launched with a 757.

Actually, AA172 started with the 763. They switched to the 75L after they lost the SN codeshares and when they had the reconfigured 75Ls available.


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...
United 903 Diverts To BOS Due To H1N1 Scare posted Fri May 1 2009 11:18:48 by Ua777222
3/8 LH441 Diverts To BOS Possible Onboard Fire posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:38:32 by HighFlyer9790
CO61 BRU-EWR Diverting To BOS posted Thu Jun 21 2007 15:41:23 by Flyer01
AF018 Diverts To BOS 6/22. posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:29:13 by HotelEchoFox
BA 747 Enroute PHL-LHR Diverts To BOS posted Sun Mar 2 2003 06:26:14 by Goboeing
LH422 744 FRA-BOS Diverts To JFK posted Thu Feb 15 2007 00:50:39 by HighFlyer9790
DL 031 SVO-JFK Diverts To AMS posted Thu Nov 19 2009 05:33:40 by Eham
VS09 LHR-JFK Diverting To BOS Now posted Thu Aug 14 2008 16:34:36 by A340Crew
Korean Air ICN-JFK Diverts To Japan posted Fri Jul 18 2008 15:55:04 by Jourdan747
BA213 777 LHR-BOS Diverts To EWR posted Thu Feb 15 2007 00:45:27 by HighFlyer9790