AC MAD-YYZ: major damage to landing gear and engine on takeoff - circling MAD airspace

SpaceshipDC10 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:18 pm

AC836 landed about an hour late at MAD and AC837 departed two hours late. Can it be related to that take off incident? We'll learn it at a later stage.

migair54 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:23 pm

the plane is still in a holding patern southeast of MAD, all ready for them to land in Barajas but apparently they need at least1 more hour, schedule landing is 19.30-20.00 Madrid time or 18.30-19.00Z.

The problem is not the engine, the problem is landing overweight, MAD has very long runways, the problem is if the landing gear is damage and the brakes, they can't be sure of the Landing distance they need, so i guess they will try to reduce the fuel as much as possible.

RalXWB · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:24 pm

How old is this one, must be about 30 years old...

Spacepope · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:24 pm

ukoverlander wrote:
Appealing to smarter minds than mine to confrim or reject this notion - if a blow tire caused engine damage, given the location of the main gear (behind the engines) would it be reasonable to conclude the blown tire was on the nose gear?

Not necessarily. a rotating tire can have a forward motion component as well so if a chunk was ejected at the right time, it may have been flung in front of the wheel. In this case that means a maingear tire can't be ruled out.

qf789 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:25 pm

Confirmed 1 tire burst by fighter jet

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 89925?s=20

airnorth · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:26 pm

30 year old plane, closer to 31 seems old for a plane, not sure if it is or not, are there any comparable examples?
I am confident that all maintenance is up to date, stuff happens, doubtful that age has anything to do with this incident, what are your thoughts?

https://twitter.com/tweetingwithroy/sta ... 0666077185

dcajet · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:26 pm

F-18 from Spain's Ejercito del Aire flying alongside the AC 767

https://twitter.com/CarlosC97620547/sta ... 9367820290

2nd2none · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:30 pm

RalXWB wrote:
How old is this one, must be about 30 years old...

Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 24087
Line Number 249
Aircraft Type Boeing 767-375(ER)
First Flight 31 Mar 1989
Age 30.9 Years
Test Registration N6038E
Production Site Everett (PAE)
Airframe Status Active

sgbroimp · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:33 pm

FLLspotter747 wrote:
Airport fire rescue services are preparing on the livestream, landing should be soon

Almost has to be soon. Sunset is about now. Not a great idea to land in the dark if not necessary.

ShamrockBoi330 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:35 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
AC836 landed about an hour late at MAD and AC837 departed two hours late. Can it be related to that take off incident? We'll learn it at a later stage.

There were drone issues causing havoc apparently this morning, airport was shut for a period, more likely to have caused these delays.

catiii · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:35 pm

amstone17 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
I can't imagine...circling for hours on likely one engine. Surprised they just don't land overweight? But if the gear is damaged you want those tanks as empty as you can get them.

You typically don't screw around landing overweight if you already have reports of damage to landing gear, especially if the rest of the aircraft systems are stable. We're all talking about this from our chairs, the pilots in the aircraft have the best view of the situation and call the shots.

Landing overweight can be risky in any situation. Doing it with one engine inoperable, and unknown gear issues, is just too many risks at once if they are doing ok otherwise. Of course they won't carry on back to Toronto, but they aren't going to rush landing the thing and potentially having a gear collapse on a flaming engine with wings full of fuel.

Imagine, calmly handling an engine out. Surprised that they didn't find a school to dump fuel over at a low altitude unannounced like another carrier we know... :duck:

Etheereal · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:39 pm

catiii wrote:
amstone17 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
I can't imagine...circling for hours on likely one engine. Surprised they just don't land overweight? But if the gear is damaged you want those tanks as empty as you can get them.

You typically don't screw around landing overweight if you already have reports of damage to landing gear, especially if the rest of the aircraft systems are stable. We're all talking about this from our chairs, the pilots in the aircraft have the best view of the situation and call the shots.

Landing overweight can be risky in any situation. Doing it with one engine inoperable, and unknown gear issues, is just too many risks at once if they are doing ok otherwise. Of course they won't carry on back to Toronto, but they aren't going to rush landing the thing and potentially having a gear collapse on a flaming engine with wings full of fuel.

Imagine, calmly handling an engine out. Surprised that they didn't find a school to dump fuel over at a low altitude unannounced like another carrier we know...

That 767 doesnt seem to have the capability to dump fuel. Besides, dumping fuel areas are supposed to be authorized by ATC.

catiii · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:40 pm

He looks like he's departed the hold, at least from the FR track online.

sgbroimp · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:42 pm

sgbroimp wrote:
FLLspotter747 wrote:
Airport fire rescue services are preparing on the livestream, landing should be soon

Almost has to be soon. Sunset is about now. Not a great idea to land in the dark if not necessary.

Of course being overweight with no dump system would remove the daylight option............

YYZYYT · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:42 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
brunoguemes wrote:
In Cadena Ser (Spanish radio) they broadcasted the pilot saying a tyre blew up and damaged the engine.

Memories of AF 4590.

No, not really. For many reasons, ranging from the fact that AF didn't damage an engine (was a ruptured fuel tank) to AC "not engulfed in a giant ball of fire" as it rotated...

Virtual737 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:46 pm

FR24 having a few issues now for me, from multiple browsers in multiple continents. I guess a few people are tracking this flight.

lugie · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:48 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
FR24 having a few issues now for me, from multiple browsers in multiple continents. I guess a few people are tracking this flight.

Same for me, it only displays those planes on transoceanic tracks with estimated positions but no live ADS-B positions.

catiii · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:48 pm

YYZYYT wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
brunoguemes wrote:
In Cadena Ser (Spanish radio) they broadcasted the pilot saying a tyre blew up and damaged the engine.

Memories of AF 4590.

No, not really. For many reasons, ranging from the fact that AF didn't damage an engine (was a ruptured fuel tank) to AC "not engulfed in a giant ball of fire" as it rotated...

Nor was it a fire that could not be exterminated.

yzfElite · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:49 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
FR24 having a few issues now for me, from multiple browsers in multiple continents. I guess a few people are tracking this flight.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA837

Virtual737 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:50 pm

yzfElite wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
FR24 having a few issues now for me, from multiple browsers in multiple continents. I guess a few people are tracking this flight.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA837

Thanks

hiflyeras · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:50 pm

Looks like they are on approach

Scarebus34 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:52 pm

So much sensationalism. wow.

tlvflyguy · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:52 pm

From FR24 Twitter page:
"Due to an extreme spike in traffic following #AC837, we are experiencing service issues. We are working on those issues at the moment and hope to have them resolved as soon possible."

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 54401?s=21

Virtual737 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:54 pm

tlvflyguy wrote:
From FR24 Twitter page:
"Due to an extreme spike in traffic following #AC837, we are experiencing service issues. We are working on those issues at the moment and hope to have them resolved as soon possible."

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 54401?s=21

Thanks. That's a first as far as I'm aware?

catiii · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:56 pm

Etheereal wrote:
catiii wrote:
amstone17 wrote:

You typically don't screw around landing overweight if you already have reports of damage to landing gear, especially if the rest of the aircraft systems are stable. We're all talking about this from our chairs, the pilots in the aircraft have the best view of the situation and call the shots.

Landing overweight can be risky in any situation. Doing it with one engine inoperable, and unknown gear issues, is just too many risks at once if they are doing ok otherwise. Of course they won't carry on back to Toronto, but they aren't going to rush landing the thing and potentially having a gear collapse on a flaming engine with wings full of fuel.

Imagine, calmly handling an engine out. Surprised that they didn't find a school to dump fuel over at a low altitude unannounced like another carrier we know...

That 767 doesnt seem to have the capability to dump fuel. Besides, dumping fuel areas are supposed to be authorized by ATC.

yeah, I know... :sarcastic:

Scarebus34 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:56 pm

tlvflyguy wrote:
From FR24 Twitter page:
"Due to an extreme spike in traffic following #AC837, we are experiencing service issues. We are working on those issues at the moment and hope to have them resolved as soon possible."

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 54401?s=21

FR24 mobile app seems to be working without issue

BOAC1966 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:58 pm

Leaving hold for approach?

Scarebus34 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:58 pm

BOAC1966 wrote:
Leaving hold for approach?

Does appear to be on arrival...

Virtual737 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:58 pm

BOAC1966 wrote:
Leaving hold for approach?

Looks like it.

MrBretz · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:00 pm

Looks like she’s heading to MAD?

BOAC1966 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm

32L has lots of ground vehicles

btfarrwm · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:05 pm

Live broadcast of landing here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6M2TLL4_wc

Scarebus34 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:07 pm

She is on the ground safely. Everyone can calm down....

CanadianRedneck · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:07 pm

Solid landing!

Bradin · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:08 pm

Looks like a safe landing! A job well done by the AC 837 Crew!

DALMD80 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:11 pm

Glad they got down okay. Could have been much worse.

mcdu · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:12 pm

MrBretz wrote:
I assume this 767 can not dump fuel?

The 767 can only dump fuel from the center tank. After you dump the center you have to burn the wing fuel or land overweight.

Virtual737 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:12 pm

Couldn't have been much worse for FR24. I guess they need to rethink their peak load strategy.

Kikko19 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:12 pm

very well. landed normally

zeke · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:23 pm

MTato wrote:
Out of curiosity...Is the amount of single engine flight time limited by ETOPS in this case? Or as they are flying over terrain they can flight as long as needed on single engine?

For EDTO/ETOPS, there is no maximum time you are allowed to fly on one engine. An aircraft maybe dispatched under EDTO/ETOPS 180 minutes for example that will assume an aircraft remains within 3 hrs flight time at maximum speed, and typically you only then need to land with 15 minutes of fuel.

The captain may decide after a failure to fly a more regular speed and thus reduce the fuel burn to the diversion airport giving them more fuel on arrival, which allows for more options.

There is a difference between how diversions are planned, and how they are flown.

fpetrutiu · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:23 pm

FLLspotter747 wrote:
Airport fire rescue services are preparing on the livestream, landing should be soon

Have a link?

boeing767300 · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:24 pm

Bradin wrote:
Looks like a safe landing! A job well done by the AC 837 Crew!

Could not agree more they did a superb job and never any doubt in this writers mind. Great crew, great aircraft and amazing airline.

airlinermiami · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:26 pm

Landed safely

Starfuryt · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:44 pm

She is on the ground, landed safely and uneventfully.

Tristarsteve · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:49 pm

mcdu wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
I assume this 767 can not dump fuel?

The 767 can only dump fuel from the center tank. After you dump the center you have to burn the wing fuel or land overweight.

Yes but some B767 cannot dump fuel at all. The BA fleet was about half could dump, and half could not. No idea why.

1989worstyear · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:49 pm

[twoid][/twoid]

Scarebus34 wrote:
So much sensationalism. wow.

That's because it's a 767. If it was a 777 or A330, or an A320 of the same age the clickbait millenial-industrial complex would not have made a peep.

:banghead:

FML

BA777FO · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:55 pm

MTato wrote:
Out of curiosity...Is the amount of single engine flight time limited by ETOPS in this case? Or as they are flying over terrain they can flight as long as needed on single engine?

They can in theory fly as long as they want. ETOPS is essentially a planning exercise to ensure that if an engine loss occurs they can divert to a suitable airport within 180 (or whichever its certified for) minutes. As soon as they depart, if they lose an engine and need to fly for 4 hours to burn off fuel then they can do that. One of the main limits on ETOPS certification isn't really to do with the engines but cargo hold fire suppressant. In theory a cargo fire should stay contained for 3 hours on an ETOPS 180 aircraft, but not necessarily any longer. But it would happily fly on a single engine for much longer.

It is understandable with a landing gear issue that you'd want to be light as possible. The runways in Madrid are long but if you have burst tyres then being as light as possible is an ideal aim to avoid causing further issues on touchdown.

Some A350s are being delivered without fuel jettison systems too, so it wouldn't be surprising if this 767 doesn't have a fuel jettison system.

BigWNFan · Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:58 pm

What about the wings?

zeke · Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:01 pm

BigWNFan wrote:
What about the wings?

A detailed inspection made by highly qualified mechanics found them attached to the fuselage after a brief search.

767333ER · Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:07 pm

MrBretz wrote:
marcoj wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
I assume this 767 can not dump fuel?

Here http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... eldump.pdf

I found that. It was the ** that had me ask the question. But since they have been right hand race tracking this long, I presume it can’t.

No this particular 767 involved in this incident does not have jettison capability. It doesn’t even have the nozzle for it

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net