Investigation and information on the near crash of AA flight 300 in April of 2019. A321 operating AA flight 300, departing JFK the wing scraped the ground in what was described by pilots as an uncommanded 45 degree roll when aircraft rotated. Wing got torn up and aircraft nearly crashed, by all accounts. This completely dropped off the news and no further updates have surfaced, at least not that I've found and I've looked around.

Anyone have any updates?? Further info?? What happened to the incident airplane, that apparently never flew again - ?
.

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... -a321/amp/

Here’s also an article from 7/28/2020 regarding the scrapping of the plane

The "uncommanded" roll claim is just that - it has not been verified.

Other possibilities exist, especially if this was a crosswind takeoff?

My understanding is basically the damage and location of plane means the plane got very off center as well.

Let's see what NTSB comes out with - though no idea why it should take so long to write these reports.

An "uncommanded" roll just means that they didn't intend for the plane to do that. It doesn't mean that their inputs, given the weather and other factors, didn't cause the roll. They're trying to imply that the plane "did it on its own", but unless it had a history of similar previous behavior (which might explain why they're scrapping it), then this is like a million Airbus interactions where the plane does something that the pilots don't expect it to ("What's it doing now???"). However, and this is CRITICAL, that doesn't mean that the aircraft isn't doing exactly what the pilots, knowingly or unknowingly, are telling it to do. Just like AF over the Atlantic -- while the bunkies are pointing the nose up with the stick full back but engaging in conversation about why it's stalling. (Another accident or near-accident that if the Captain had just taken the controls wouldn't have happened.)

So I think the more likely conclusion is some form of pilot error, but we'll have to see. If indeed the airframe had a history of doing this, or can be shown to have done something on its own that it shouldn't do, take a torch to the thing and destroy or continue to inspect (don't reuse) the computers.

Thanks MBSDALHOU - I read Simple Flying but I missed that article, appreciate it.

Appreciate all the other replies as well; I was particularly wondering why NTSB hadn't said anything yet but it makes sense COVID has slowed things down.

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

SLVRBLT- no problem!

wjcandee wrote:

An "uncommanded" roll just means that they didn't intend for the plane to do that. It doesn't mean that their inputs, given the weather and other factors, didn't cause the roll. They're trying to imply that the plane "did it on its own", but unless it had a history of similar previous behavior (which might explain why they're scrapping it), then this is like a million Airbus interactions where the plane does something that the pilots don't expect it to ("What's it doing now???"). However, and this is CRITICAL, that doesn't mean that the aircraft isn't doing exactly what the pilots, knowingly or unknowingly, are telling it to do. Just like AF over the Atlantic -- while the bunkies are pointing the nose up with the stick full back but engaging in conversation about why it's stalling. (Another accident or near-accident that if the Captain had just taken the controls wouldn't have happened.)

So I think the more likely conclusion is some form of pilot error, but we'll have to see. If indeed the airframe had a history of doing this, or can be shown to have done something on its own that it shouldn't do, take a torch to the thing and destroy or continue to inspect (don't reuse) the computers.

Its being scrapped as the wing is bent backwards, needs to be replaced, spar damage and Airbus said they could fix it but wouldn’t assume liability if something happened to the plane inflight and caused an accident. Plus it’s very costly repair, not due to an Avionics issue.

wjcandee wrote:

An "uncommanded" roll just means that they didn't intend for the plane to do that. It doesn't mean that their inputs, given the weather and other factors, didn't cause the roll. They're trying to imply that the plane "did it on its own", but unless it had a history of similar previous behavior (which might explain why they're scrapping it), then this is like a million Airbus interactions where the plane does something that the pilots don't expect it to ("What's it doing now???"). However, and this is CRITICAL, that doesn't mean that the aircraft isn't doing exactly what the pilots, knowingly or unknowingly, are telling it to do. Just like AF over the Atlantic -- while the bunkies are pointing the nose up with the stick full back but engaging in conversation about why it's stalling. (Another accident or near-accident that if the Captain had just taken the controls wouldn't have happened.)

And if the FO had just taken the controls on Korean 8509, United 173, etc the accident wouldn't have happened. History and CRM intervention has shown us that the human in either seat is capable of bad judgement. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Boof02671 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

An "uncommanded" roll just means that they didn't intend for the plane to do that. It doesn't mean that their inputs, given the weather and other factors, didn't cause the roll. They're trying to imply that the plane "did it on its own", but unless it had a history of similar previous behavior (which might explain why they're scrapping it), then this is like a million Airbus interactions where the plane does something that the pilots don't expect it to ("What's it doing now???"). However, and this is CRITICAL, that doesn't mean that the aircraft isn't doing exactly what the pilots, knowingly or unknowingly, are telling it to do. Just like AF over the Atlantic -- while the bunkies are pointing the nose up with the stick full back but engaging in conversation about why it's stalling. (Another accident or near-accident that if the Captain had just taken the controls wouldn't have happened.)

So I think the more likely conclusion is some form of pilot error, but we'll have to see. If indeed the airframe had a history of doing this, or can be shown to have done something on its own that it shouldn't do, take a torch to the thing and destroy or continue to inspect (don't reuse) the computers.

Its being scrapped as the wing is bent backwards, needs to be replaced, spar damage and Airbus said they could fix it but wouldn’t assume liability if something happened to the plane inflight and caused an accident. Plus it’s very costly repair, not due to an Avionics issue.

And there's now a surplus of frames worldwide. So it's also not even worth fixing as getting a replacement (if needed) is easy.

I really do want to see what the cause of this incident was. Extremely strange circumstances and outcome.

teachpdx wrote:

I would assume that NTSB reports are slower than normal due to COVID, and since it wasn’t a fatal accident it may be given an even lower priority. It looks like recent fatal incidents have been running around 17-19 months between the occurrence and the report (Atlas 3591 17 months, WN 1380 19 months), and nonfatal closer to 21 months (Ameristar 9363). So we are currently around 18 months out... I would expect a final report in early 2021.

I would think that even though it wasn't fatal, getting a report out as soon as possible would be good in case something is found that should be corrected or trained better to prevent a future incident.

planecane wrote:

teachpdx wrote:

I would assume that NTSB reports are slower than normal due to COVID, and since it wasn’t a fatal accident it may be given an even lower priority. It looks like recent fatal incidents have been running around 17-19 months between the occurrence and the report (Atlas 3591 17 months, WN 1380 19 months), and nonfatal closer to 21 months (Ameristar 9363). So we are currently around 18 months out... I would expect a final report in early 2021.

I would think that even though it wasn't fatal, getting a report out as soon as possible would be good in case something is found that should be corrected or trained better to prevent a future incident.

These reports are always slow. The goal is do it right, not over-react.

Lightsaber

dynamo12 wrote:

My understanding is basically the damage and location of plane means the plane got very off center as well.

That’s an understatement.

Boof02671 wrote:

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

Oh, wow......much worse than I thought. And they took this up to 20k feet before they thought better of it?????? That had to have made a substantial noise and vibration, hell the bottom of the wing is all scraped off. Bad judgment all around, even if the uncommanded roll turns out not their fault.

Reminds me of the Qatar 77W incident in MIA, more bad judgment. He took the wrong runway entrance for take off a couple of years ago so he had a short runway. It barely got airborne, taking out the approach lighting structures at the end of the runway and tore up the aircraft's belly pretty badly. This guy kept going though, all the way to Qatar.

lightsaber wrote:

planecane wrote:

teachpdx wrote:

I would assume that NTSB reports are slower than normal due to COVID, and since it wasn’t a fatal accident it may be given an even lower priority. It looks like recent fatal incidents have been running around 17-19 months between the occurrence and the report (Atlas 3591 17 months, WN 1380 19 months), and nonfatal closer to 21 months (Ameristar 9363). So we are currently around 18 months out... I would expect a final report in early 2021.

I would think that even though it wasn't fatal, getting a report out as soon as possible would be good in case something is found that should be corrected or trained better to prevent a future incident.

These reports are always slow. The goal is do it right, not over-react.

Lightsaber

Preliminary findings are often released much quicker - and major corrective actions are taken based on those. I am OK with no report, but a one page summary with the list of smoking guns can go a long way..

MBSDALHOU wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/american-airlines-scraps-wing-strike-a321/amp/

Here’s also an article from 7/28/2020 regarding the scrapping of the plane

“There is a suggestion the pilots didn’t anticipate the severity of the winds and did not deflect or apply enough rudder to keep the aircraft centered.”


They broke one Airbus with excess and nearly again with not enough rudder if that article is anything to go by. :/

slvrblt wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

Oh, wow......much worse than I thought. And they took this up to 20k feet before they thought better of it?????? That had to have made a substantial noise and vibration, hell the bottom of the wing is all scraped off. Bad judgment all around, even if the uncommanded roll turns out not their fault.

That actually doesn't look that bad. Clearly the aircraft whacked something, but it appears just the winglet and part of the leading edge are dinged up. That's why many people were expecting a new winglet, some repair and the aircraft returning to service.

I'd love to see a side view or more of the wing. As it appears (based on comments here and previously) the real damage was that the whole wing got bent.

Boof02671 wrote:

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

Without wanting to pass judgement on the crew as none of us were in the cockpit that night, this does raise a few questions:

1). Could you sustain this amount of damage to the wing during take-off and not know that you had hit anything?

2). You believe you have a fault with a primary flight control system which has initiated an uncommanded roll. Do you

a) - Get back on the ground as soon as possible?
or
b) - Climb to FL200 while you think about it?

The CVR and FDR would have made interesting listening/reading.

Antarius wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

Oh, wow......much worse than I thought. And they took this up to 20k feet before they thought better of it?????? That had to have made a substantial noise and vibration, hell the bottom of the wing is all scraped off. Bad judgment all around, even if the uncommanded roll turns out not their fault.

That actually doesn't look that bad. Clearly the aircraft whacked something, but it appears just the winglet and part of the leading edge are dinged up. That's why many people were expecting a new winglet, some repair and the aircraft returning to service.

I'd love to see a side view or more of the wing. As it appears (based on comments here and previously) the real damage was that the whole wing got bent.

An airplane can fly with a dinged up winglet and leading edge. Not efficiently or smoothly, but it can still fly. An A321 is no B-17 with battle damage, but it's resilient enough to stay airborne with a mildly bent wing. Since the damage didn't involve the fuselage, taking it up to 20,000 feet wouldn't have compromised anything due to the pressure differential. The real risk at that altitude would've been speed and the airflow's effect on the damaged area. If the crew entered a hold to diagnose the problem, I'd imagine that they slowed down from the usual climb speed.

I'm curious to know whether the port aileron's function was affected. In the video it looks like it took a little bit of scraping. Also wondering if the wing bending caused any jamming/distortion of the flaps or slats. Losing any one of those would've made the rest of the flight and landing interesting.

snasteve wrote:

They broke one Airbus with excess and nearly again with not enough rudder if that article is anything to go by. :/

Both at JFK too

N965UW wrote:

Antarius wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

Oh, wow......much worse than I thought. And they took this up to 20k feet before they thought better of it?????? That had to have made a substantial noise and vibration, hell the bottom of the wing is all scraped off. Bad judgment all around, even if the uncommanded roll turns out not their fault.

That actually doesn't look that bad. Clearly the aircraft whacked something, but it appears just the winglet and part of the leading edge are dinged up. That's why many people were expecting a new winglet, some repair and the aircraft returning to service.

I'd love to see a side view or more of the wing. As it appears (based on comments here and previously) the real damage was that the whole wing got bent.

An airplane can fly with a dinged up winglet and leading edge. Not efficiently or smoothly, but it can still fly. An A321 is no B-17 with battle damage, but it's resilient enough to stay airborne with a mildly bent wing. Since the damage didn't involve the fuselage, taking it up to 20,000 feet wouldn't have compromised anything due to the pressure differential. The real risk at that altitude would've been speed and the airflow's effect on the damaged area. If the crew entered a hold to diagnose the problem, I'd imagine that they slowed down from the usual climb speed.

I'm curious to know whether the port aileron's function was affected. In the video it looks like it took a little bit of scraping. Also wondering if the wing bending caused any jamming/distortion of the flaps or slats. Losing any one of those would've made the rest of the flight and landing interesting.

snasteve wrote:

They broke one Airbus with excess and nearly again with not enough rudder if that article is anything to go by. :/

Both at JFK too

It’s not mildly bent. It’s about 12” backwards if I remember correctly. It’s bent so bad the whole wingand root structures need to be replaced along with spars also. It’s so badly damaged Airbus really doesn’t want to fix it and if they did they said they would assume no liability if something happened due to the repairs.

slvrblt wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

I have video of it right after it happened

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w3sahpr7gn8g ... M.mp4?dl=0

Oh, wow......much worse than I thought. And they took this up to 20k feet before they thought better of it?????? That had to have made a substantial noise and vibration, hell the bottom of the wing is all scraped off. Bad judgment all around, even if the uncommanded roll turns out not their fault.

Reminds me of the Qatar 77W incident in MIA, more bad judgment. He took the wrong runway entrance for take off a couple of years ago so he had a short runway. It barely got airborne, taking out the approach lighting structures at the end of the runway and tore up the aircraft's belly pretty badly. This guy kept going though, all the way to Qatar.

And this one:

https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-invest ... 18.article

Replacing a wing on a passenger jet is not a small operation ... sure the manufacturer has a procedure for doing so (as well as all associated part #s you'd have to order) ... but time/effort/cost? It's like a bent frame on a car : you go buy a new/used car.

So with that in mind, here's a question - outside of the AC797 wing used to fix a damaged Ozark aircraft, has a wing ever been whole-sale replaced on a jetliner?

Boof02671 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

An "uncommanded" roll just means that they didn't intend for the plane to do that. It doesn't mean that their inputs, given the weather and other factors, didn't cause the roll. They're trying to imply that the plane "did it on its own", but unless it had a history of similar previous behavior (which might explain why they're scrapping it), then this is like a million Airbus interactions where the plane does something that the pilots don't expect it to ("What's it doing now???"). However, and this is CRITICAL, that doesn't mean that the aircraft isn't doing exactly what the pilots, knowingly or unknowingly, are telling it to do. Just like AF over the Atlantic -- while the bunkies are pointing the nose up with the stick full back but engaging in conversation about why it's stalling. (Another accident or near-accident that if the Captain had just taken the controls wouldn't have happened.)

So I think the more likely conclusion is some form of pilot error, but we'll have to see. If indeed the airframe had a history of doing this, or can be shown to have done something on its own that it shouldn't do, take a torch to the thing and destroy or continue to inspect (don't reuse) the computers.

Its being scrapped as the wing is bent backwards, needs to be replaced, spar damage and Airbus said they could fix it but wouldn’t assume liability if something happened to the plane inflight and caused an accident. Plus it’s very costly repair, not due to an Avionics issue.

the fault could have been verified by downloading the flight data recorder and the ECAM as any and all faults are recorded there and even is they're down to level 3 faults. Now? they may not want to disclose the faults but daMN SURE ONE OF THE gYROS CAUGHT THE FAULT WHEN the computers signaled the fault. the Airbus is good in that nearly Everything that happens on that airplane is caught and recorded BY something so it only depands on just how far you intend to Look and what you're filling to disclose! Rest assured. Somebody knows Something!

teachpdx wrote:

Besides the April 2019 tweet where the NTSB said they were investigating, is there any confirmation that they are actually investigating? I’d be shocked if they weren’t... I just can’t confirm it.

Weak confirmation, but more than nothing:
"In late 2019 American Airlines had confirmed to me that the NTSB was still investigating the incident…"
https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-scrapping-a321/

Sounds like a flow separation on one side.

What was the flap configuration?

strfyr51 wrote:

Somebody knows Something!

Yeah, surely the two guys upfront know things.

I can only think of one reason why you would take up the craft to FL200 after such an occurence on take off: The crew is is discussing if there is any chance to somehow sweep that takeoff under the carpet while at the same time acting "normal" for ATC. And then they realised: Nope, that was too much to sweep.

But maybe I am wrong and some super duper rare computer glitch comes out during investigation that hasn't been detected during the last 10.000 family aircraft and the guys are heroes after all.

slvrblt wrote:

Investigation and information on the near crash of AA flight 300 in April of 2019. A321 operating AA flight 300, departing JFK the wing scraped the ground in what was described by pilots as an uncommanded 45 degree roll when aircraft rotated. Wing got torn up and aircraft nearly crashed, by all accounts. This completely dropped off the news and no further updates have surfaced, at least not that I've found and I've looked around.

Anyone have any updates?? Further info?? What happened to the incident airplane, that apparently never flew again - ?
.

Hey buddy, I think you’re trying to sensationalise the situation. Just wait a few and the official report will come out.

BOSAero wrote:

slvrblt wrote:

Investigation and information on the near crash of AA flight 300 in April of 2019. A321 operating AA flight 300, departing JFK the wing scraped the ground in what was described by pilots as an uncommanded 45 degree roll when aircraft rotated. Wing got torn up and aircraft nearly crashed, by all accounts. This completely dropped off the news and no further updates have surfaced, at least not that I've found and I've looked around.

Anyone have any updates?? Further info?? What happened to the incident airplane, that apparently never flew again - ?
.

Hey buddy, I think you’re trying to sensationalise the situation. Just wait a few and the official report will come out.

When do you think the report will go out?

What’s new update on 796 that striked a lamp post on takeoff at JFK?

796 is going to be scrapped and be replaced with another Airbus 321 (nx specifically). The JFK team is stripping out all the reusable parts, Engines and APU are coming off and taking out all the IFE back to Thales. That’s the end for 796.

Super sad. I was hoping they'd fix her up.

Time for some more plane skin keychains.

Makes sense. Aircraft aren't in demand anymore, so trying to fix it doesn't make sense (not to mention the complexity or even possibility of doing so given the damage)

Still would love to know what caused this. One of the more bizarre incidents

UA748i wrote:

Super sad. I was hoping they'd fix her up.

Time for some more plane skin keychains.

Too much damage whole wing needs replaced among other things and Airbus was balking about liability for the repair and with the slack in demand no need to now. They aren’t even flying them JFK-LAX-JFK right now.

Why does the IFE have to go back to Thales, could they not reuse that in the NEO that's replacing it? I didn't think there was any IFE equipment in the wing to be damaged

Nicoeddf wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Somebody knows Something!

Yeah, surely the two guys upfront know things.

I can only think of one reason why you would take up the craft to FL200 after such an occurence on take off: The crew is is discussing if there is any chance to somehow sweep that takeoff under the carpet while at the same time acting "normal" for ATC. And then they realised: Nope, that was too much to sweep.

But maybe I am wrong and some super duper rare computer glitch comes out during investigation that hasn't been detected during the last 10.000 family aircraft and the guys are heroes after all.

I think this is quite the sensationalist stretch. The pilots knew they impacted something, there's no way anyone would think "no one will notice" and continue on hoping so.

m007j wrote:

Why does the IFE have to go back to Thales, could they not reuse that in the NEO that's replacing it? I didn't think there was any IFE equipment in the wing to be damaged

Maybe it was leased or some sort of deal to pay by the aircraft without buying it equipment?

What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....

Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?

m007j wrote:

Why does the IFE have to go back to Thales, could they not reuse that in the NEO that's replacing it? I didn't think there was any IFE equipment in the wing to be damaged

Could be leased.

And then it might, in fact, go in another plane when re-leased.

Continental767 wrote:

What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....

Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?

I doubt theyd do that for one NEO.

More likely they reassign another 32B to that role.

UA748i wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....

Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?

I doubt theyd do that for one NEO.

More likely they reassign another 32B to that role.

There isn’t a need to replace one

UA748i wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....

Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?

I doubt theyd do that for one NEO.

More likely they reassign another 32B to that role.

Business demand isn't there. There is no need for a replacement for years. Premium demand needs to return.

Side note:
I find the fate of items interesting. Are the engines AA owned or leased?

Lightsaber

I guess this isn't too surprising given the drop in demand for aircraft. This is a very peculiar incident. Luckily no one was injured. I flew a few times on the Delta MD-88 that had an engine blow up on takeoff at PNS and killed a couple of passengers. It was always kind of a creepy feeling.

Since the aircraft is being stripped away, should we conclude that the investigation is completed?

It may mean the report is about to be issued.

lightsaber wrote:

UA748i wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....

Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?

I doubt theyd do that for one NEO.

More likely they reassign another 32B to that role.

Business demand isn't there. There is no need for a replacement for years. Premium demand needs to return.

Side note:
I find the fate of items interesting. Are the engines AA owned or leased?

Lightsaber

AA owns the engines

m007j wrote:

Why does the IFE have to go back to Thales, could they not reuse that in the NEO that's replacing it? I didn't think there was any IFE equipment in the wing to be damaged

I presume that AA has gotten the IFE as buyer furnished equipment under some kind of full service lease agreement from Thales. Kind of like flatrate conditions for engines.

Antarius wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Somebody knows Something!

Yeah, surely the two guys upfront know things.

I can only think of one reason why you would take up the craft to FL200 after such an occurence on take off: The crew is is discussing if there is any chance to somehow sweep that takeoff under the carpet while at the same time acting "normal" for ATC. And then they realised: Nope, that was too much to sweep.

But maybe I am wrong and some super duper rare computer glitch comes out during investigation that hasn't been detected during the last 10.000 family aircraft and the guys are heroes after all.

I think this is quite the sensationalist stretch. The pilots knew they impacted something, there's no way anyone would think "no one will notice" and continue on hoping so.

I agree, a little sensationalist in wording. On the other hand I wonder myself why the crew chose to take the aircraft up to FL200. I can't think of any occurence where I hit anything on takeoff where I wouldn't want to land soon after some troubleshooting with my partner(s) in the cockpit. And there wouldn't be any benefit of climbing to more than 5000ft AGL and stay in the vicinity of the airport, just in case.
A questionable crew decision from an outsiders perspective, at least.

bennett123 wrote:

Furthermore, if pressurisation was an issue then climbing beyond 10,000 feet could make the situation worse.

This. And also the fact that you would want to limit alterations in aerodynamic load on the aircraft after impact as much as possible. At least that would be the recommended procedure on the CRJ. And that would speak for flying 210kts or so, stay reasonably low and come back after a pattern and some troubleshooting. Well, I am looking forward to seeing the report.