Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
American Flt 180 Emergency At JFK Right Now  
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 442 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19583 times:

American Flt 180 LAX-JFK a 767 declared an emergency to the JFK Tower indicating a main landing gear problem. Aircraft did a fly by at the airport and upon go-around just declared "low fuel." Is on approach to runway 22 at this moment. Other landings are being told to circle. Several arrivals have been required to conduct missed approaches to clear space for the aircraft.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19585 times:

Flight has landed safely and requested emergency vehicles to come out and inspect the landing gear before taxiing.

User currently offlinebeefstew25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19440 times:

Thanks for the heads up. Cool to fire up the ATC Live app on my Ipad and listen in.


MLB: Where you are always number one for takeoff.....
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19164 times:

I'm pretty sure there was a discussion in this forum recently about the AA 767 transcon fleet and how the aircraft were getting up there in years of service. Anyone have age/cycle info about this specific aircraft?

Also, while this may seem mundane to many, I'm sure it wasn't a day at the park for passengers on board. These types of events can go from "no big deal" to a severe problem very quickly. A few years ago I witnessed a Learjet landing with a main landing gear malfunction. Upon touchdown the left main gear separated from the aircraft, the wingtip touched the runway and the aircraft spun off the runway in a cloud of dust. Fortunately no one was seriously injured.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17002 times:

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 3):
Anyone have age/cycle info about this specific aircraft?

Acft 329 had 93,606.25 hrs and 17,762 cycles as of the incident flight.

The problem was with the right main gear "green lens cap assembly" which did not show a green light indicating the gear being down & locked. Crew reported no other abnormal configuration warnings, no amber lights and replacing the light bulb did not fix the problem [the green light would not test properly either]. Maint. replaced the lens cap and the problem was fixed.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12026 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 4):
Acft 329 had 93,606.25 hrs and 17,762 cycles as of the incident flight.



Thanks so much for the info. One of the many things I like about this forum is there are so many members that have access to technical data that flying nerds like myself enjoy learning from.

Was the "low fuel" declaration just another sign of airlines (and I'm talking about most if not all airlines) trying to save money by flying an aircraft with a lot less fuel than they are equipped to carry? The only reason I mention the low fuel status is because usually when something tragic happens....it's usually the result of many little things going wrong.


User currently offlineAbnormal From UK - England, joined Aug 2007, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11649 times:

What was the point of the fly by?

User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11474 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 4):
Acft 329 had 93,606.25 hrs and 17,762 cycles as of the incident flight.

Is there a website where you get that, or is it AA internal?


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11378 times:

Quoting Abnormal (Reply 6):
What was the point of the fly by?

Probably for ATC to visually inspect to see if the landing gear was deployed properly before the pilots attempted to land the plane.


User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11201 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 8):
Probably for ATC to visually inspect to see if the landing gear was deployed properly before the pilots attempted to land the plane.

correct..years ago was on a DL DC-8-61 DTW-ATL (old terminal) and had the same thing....flew by the tower for a visual. Pilot still had us in "crash" positions just incase, but the gear was locked and all was fine..Just added excitement!!


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11091 times:

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 5):
Was the "low fuel" declaration just another sign of airlines (and I'm talking about most if not all airlines) trying to save money by flying an aircraft with a lot less fuel than they are equipped to carry?

Nothing unusual, just used up any "extra" fuel troubleshooting the problem. At low altitudes, the 767 burns fuel pretty rapidly.

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 7):
Is there a website where you get that, or is it AA internal?

Internal to AA.

Quoting Abnormal (Reply 6):
What was the point of the fly by?

To get at least some indication of where the landing gear was positioned. The crew had no "down & locked" indication, but also no "unsafe" or "up & locked" indications either. IOW, they didn't know what the gear was doing and none of the gear are visible from the cockpit. At least outside observers could tell you if the gear "appeared" to be in proper position.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAbnormal From UK - England, joined Aug 2007, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11050 times:

How can you rely on anybody's opinion from the ground.

Multiple proximity sensors advise if gear is down and locked, or not. If it's just an an indication problem it has to be preferable to assume the worst and plan for it with no other distractions, rather than putter around low and slow with everything hanging out, especially in a low fuel situation.


User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1261 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10682 times:

Quoting Abnormal (Reply 11):
Multiple proximity sensors advise if gear is down and locked, or not. If it's just an an indication problem it has to be preferable to assume the worst and plan for it with no other distractions, rather than putter around low and slow with everything hanging out, especially in a low fuel situation.

Im sorry but that just isnt correct (EA 401 aside). It is always best to aquire as much information as possible so long as you have the time and opportunity to do so safely. I see nothing in this situation that would indicate otherwise. Besides, with a potential gear problem you dont want to land with any more fuel than necessary anyhow.


User currently offlinepilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10626 times:

Quoting Abnormal (Reply 11):
How can you rely on anybody's opinion from the ground.

Ive had this happen before it's very important what someone on the ground tells you, with a nice set of binoculars

they can tell you if your assembly is down *cant tell you if it's locked* and they can tell you if anything unusual is sticking out or flowing out, gushing out, dangling, smoke, fire, there's a lot of information they can provide, your gear can be halfway in or out - that changes where on the runway you allign, how much drift you expect from your touchdown laterally how much friction, how much to use the differential brakes....you can asses a great deal from the deck based on a simple ground observation



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlineGoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10124 times:

glad to hear everything was all right. i remember in '08 when AA 737 had a landing gear problem after departure from MIA. It seems like all the sudden real-life action thrill for us aviation enthusiasts always happens at every airport but TPA. Although, there was one time on my birthday last year but other than that...and i mised it too.


From the airport with love
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10086 times:

About the fly-by, when I witnessed the Learjet accident I mentioned above, the aircraft in fact did several fly-bys so the gear could be checked from the ground. In fact, spotters on the ground were able to easily determine the left main gear was actually twisted 90-degrees from where it should be. I'm sure that information was helpful to the pilot when the aircraft landed and then skidded off the runway.

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10037 times:

Quoting Abnormal (Reply 11):
How can you rely on anybody's opinion from the ground.

You don't rely on it, but you still use it to make your decision on what to do. There's a big difference between landing with a gear that is down but might not be locked, and landing with a gear that is barely hanging out of the well. If I'm doing that landing, I'd like to know which to expect. And I can't see that from inside the airplane.

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 5):
Was the "low fuel" declaration just another sign of airlines (and I'm talking about most if not all airlines) trying to save money by flying an aircraft with a lot less fuel than they are equipped to carry?

Reserves have been cut down, yes. That means that planes have less time to loiter - it leads to more diversions, but it's not really a safety issue.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineB737900 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For those interested you can go to www.avherald.com for the full story and discussion. Aviation Herald probably offers more information of what can go wrong with ac than some want to know! I also appreciate the insight that experienced a.netters give. Keep it up there.


Sounds like a Beaver on floats..........we're saved!!
User currently offlinebeefstew25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5173 times:

I was on a TWA 727 into JAX when something like this happened to me. We flew parallel to a plane taking off so a pilot on that plane could check things out after we did two tower fly bys.

Some Navy pilots were on the plane and assured me that I needed only one Hail Mary, as the runway we were landing on was stable and long.

A load of emergency vehicles trailed us and we landed without incident.



MLB: Where you are always number one for takeoff.....
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4948 times:

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 5):
"low fuel"

Was this actually what you heard or is it your translation? The correct phraseology for ATC to hear from the crew would be "minimum fuel" if it wasn't "emergency fuel". Two very different meanings. "Low fuel" would or should have been met with a question regarding minimum or emergency fuel from the controller.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Reserves have been cut down, yes. That means that planes have less time to loiter - it leads to more diversions, but it's not really a safety issue.

  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
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...
JetBlue Incident At JFK...right Now posted Fri Nov 1 2002 19:21:58 by Mikephotos
Fire Emergency At MEL Right Now posted Tue Feb 6 2001 09:11:11 by Zanadou
JetBlue Emergency At JFK Now! posted Tue Apr 14 2009 19:45:34 by CanyonBlue17
Emergency At JFK 4/1/09? posted Wed Apr 1 2009 06:25:58 by Contrails
767-323 With Winglets At DFW Right Now posted Sat Mar 7 2009 15:01:02 by Dfwagt
Virgin Emergency At JFK posted Mon May 26 2008 16:57:35 by Flyorski
Romanian B707 At ARN Right Now posted Tue Mar 11 2008 05:08:12 by SK973
AC 767 Incident At YYZ Right Now? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 01:49:37 by NRA-3B
Gas Leak At LHR Right Now? posted Wed Jun 27 2007 16:25:34 by BHXDTW
OA Emergency At JFK? posted Sat Feb 17 2007 15:40:50 by TakeOff