Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
dynamo12 wrote:My understanding is basically the damage and location of plane means the plane got very off center as well.
Boof02671 wrote:
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
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
slvrblt wrote:Boof02671 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.
Boof02671 wrote:
Antarius wrote:slvrblt wrote:Boof02671 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.
snasteve wrote:They broke one Airbus with excess and nearly again with not enough rudder if that article is anything to go by. :/
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
slvrblt wrote:Boof02671 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.
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.
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.
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.
strfyr51 wrote:Somebody knows Something!
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 - ?
.
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.
UA748i wrote:Super sad. I was hoping they'd fix her up.
Time for some more plane skin keychains.
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.
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
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
Continental767 wrote:What a bizarre incident. None of it really makes sense....
Will they be configuring a sole A321N in the transcon config?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
bennett123 wrote:Furthermore, if pressurisation was an issue then climbing beyond 10,000 feet could make the situation worse.