Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 07:22:42 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  American Airlines 1236 loses right engine after take off at KSNA
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: American Airlines 1236 loses right engine after take off at KSNA  (Read 15597 times)
ed3004
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« on: February 21, 2009, 10:28:52 AM »

Hi, this happened last week, Feb-15-09. I'm surprised it didn't get much attention. You can hear the adrenaline pumping on this one. I edited the clip some. Between :38 and 3:52 I left it alone so you can hear it in real time and because the scanner jumps around and picks up partial transmissions. I also found a flight map from from fboweb.com and a log from flightaware.com. I searched the KLAX archive in the appropriate place but couldn't hear any mention of the flight. It's interesting that he decided to go all the way to LAX when he could have returned to the airport, gone to Long Beach Airport or even MCAS El Toro (even though it's closed).

Here's something a passenger posted and what some eye witnesses said:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/923224-engine-blow-out-after-take-off.html
« Last Edit: February 21, 2009, 10:31:11 AM by ed3004 » Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2009, 02:18:41 PM »

Easy answer on why they went to LAX. They have a full maintenance crew there, where they wouldn't have one at SNA or LGB. The marines wouldn't let them into the MCAS, closed or open; even if they did, they'd have to keep passengers on the plane while they fix the engine, with the windows shut. There was an incident where a SWA jet landed at KLSV for some reason. they had to keep the passengers on the plane with windows shut to keep the AFB ops a secret.

But if something major happened like that, AAL is heading to LAX.

BL.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2009, 03:02:50 PM »

Interesting find.

Just to clarify one thing though.  The previous post is absolutely correct in saying the crew did good in diverting to LAX due to better maintenance capabilities.  But there is another item in play here.  While an engine failure is treated as an emergency, there is no imminent danger, so a quick return to landing is not necessary.  There are quite a few checklists that would have to be followed to secure the engine (no restart would be tried in this case) and continue single engine flight.

What I don't understand is it is the same voice (the First Officer) on the radio the entire time.  Normally, during an emergency, the Pilot Flying takes the radio, which appears to be the case.  But at the very beginning during the initial climb, it is still the F/Os voice.  I just find it hard to believe that they would have jumped into the QRH so quickly.  But hey, what do I know?
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
ed3004
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2009, 05:34:53 PM »

At the end you hear someone asking if there was a bird strike. It seems that nowadays that's the first thing that comes to mind when something like this happens. For those of you who fly, has your perception of birds as a hazard changed a great deal? After the flight 1549 accident I think we're all starting to develop bird phobia. Anybody return your pet bird to the pet store yet? wink
Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2009, 07:44:17 PM »

Last summer my CFI was with a student on final and had a hawk fly straight through the windscreen on one of the 152's. Smacked him right in the face and flopped around in the back. They landed uneventfully. Not long before that another CFI and student had a bird come through the windscreen and ended up losing lift due to the drag and ended up landing in a tomato field. Since then im always a little more cautious when I see birds...
Logged

Volunteer KSUU feeder
http://d.liveatc.net/ksuu.m3u
aviator_06
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2009, 10:28:23 PM »

I went on that forum and some of the eyewitness reports are pretty comical.  lol
Logged

fholbert
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2009, 01:45:26 AM »

keep passengers on the plane while they fix the engine, with the windows shut.

I hate it when the airlines make me keep the window closed!

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
Logged

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2009, 11:19:22 AM »

He did not lose the engine. Engine experienced compressor stalls so they reduced power.
Dont think it was shut down.
Logged
gina54
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 05:35:44 PM »

I was on this flight and still a bit shaken up about it.  I just joined this forum after finding it in a search.  Any chance someone can send me this file?  I am going to try and download now but my itunes is down for some reason.

Thanks so much!
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2009, 06:49:04 PM »

http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2093#p27275

Quote

Quote
Sec. 121.565

Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

[ (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent
possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

snip.....

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.
Behold FAR 121.565. So saith the FAA, so shall it be!!

I have highlighted three very important parts. The first is 'Suitable' airport. Not every piece of asphalt is suitable for a fairly heavy 757. KSNA with it's 5700 ft runway and nearby high ground may not be suitable for an aircraft dealing with an emergency.

The next key phrase is 'point of time'. Not the nearest airport distance wise, but the nearest airport in point of time. You may have an engine failure at FL370 right over the top of KDFW, but by the time you descend and are ready to land, KIAH may be the more logical option. When you have an engine failure, assuming you aren't on fire and need to land immediately, there are checklists to accomplish, dispatchers and ATC to coordinate with, single engine landing briefs to be discussed, and F/A and Pax announcements that need to be made. This takes time. Even if they wanted to land at KSNA, they would have had to take a lot of vectors or hold somewhere just to do all the busywork.

The last phrase is 'safe landing' which is fairly self explanatory. Is a safe landing easier to accomplish at LAX compared to KSNA....I think that's a fairly easy argument to make. Most of my trips start out of KLGA. Returning there in the event of an engine failure is not a sure thing and in many cases, my takeoff brief will include an alternate plan to head straight to JFK. Washington National is another where the brief generally includes a plan to go straight to Dulles. I have no desire to try and land on a short runway while attempting to remain outside of P56 and dealing with an emergency.

As para (d) states, this crew may have to explain their choice (they're going to have to file a lot of reports anyway). It's an argument that they are going to win with ease.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 06:52:40 PM by iskyfly » Logged
Switch Monkey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2009, 11:02:25 PM »

Easy answer on why they went to LAX. They have a full maintenance crew there, where they wouldn't have one at SNA or LGB. The marines wouldn't let them into the MCAS, closed or open; even if they did, they'd have to keep passengers on the plane while they fix the engine, with the windows shut. There was an incident where a SWA jet landed at KLSV for some reason. they had to keep the passengers on the plane with windows shut to keep the AFB ops a secret.

But if something major happened like that, AAL is heading to LAX.

BL.


I'm sure the flight crew had a reason other than LAX is a maintenance base, as to why they decided to go to LAX. During a single engine emergency you are REQUIRED to land at the NEAREST SUITABLE airport. As a PIC you base your decision of what is suitable on many factors such as: runway length, crash fire rescue availability, terrain, winds, available instrument approaches and etc. If you chose an airport that is a further distance from another suitable airport you had better be able to explain to the FAA why you chose it. If you answer is "because we have MX there" be prepared to lose your certificate. If I'm in a single engine emergency I could care less if it will be an inconvenience to my passengers or my company having  hang a new engine on the plane at an outstation or even an airport that isn't even served by my airline, to include an top secret airforce base. The PIC's primary duty is to safeguard the lives of all soles on that plane.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 02:33:34 PM by Switch Monkey » Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2009, 10:08:10 AM »



I'm sure the flight crew had a reason other than LAX is a maintains base, as to why they decided to go to LAX. During a single engine emergency you are REQUIRED to land at the NEAREST SUITABLE airport. As a PIC you base your decision of what is suitable on many factors such as: runway length, crash fire rescue availability, terrain, winds, available instrument approaches and etc. If you chose an airport that is a further distance from another suitable airport you had better be able to explain to the FAA why you chose it. If you answer is "because we have MX there" be prepared to lose your certificate. If I'm in a single engine emergency I could care less if it will be an inconvenience to my passengers or my company having  hang a new engine on the plane at an outstation or even an airport that isn't even served by my airline, to include an top secret airforce base. The PIC's primary duty is to safeguard the lives of all soles on that plane.

ahmmmm.... see the post before yours....
Logged
Switch Monkey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2009, 02:35:29 PM »




I'm sure the flight crew had a reason other than LAX is a maintains base, as to why they decided to go to LAX. During a single engine emergency you are REQUIRED to land at the NEAREST SUITABLE airport. As a PIC you base your decision of what is suitable on many factors such as: runway length, crash fire rescue availability, terrain, winds, available instrument approaches and etc. If you chose an airport that is a further distance from another suitable airport you had better be able to explain to the FAA why you chose it. If you answer is "because we have MX there" be prepared to lose your certificate. If I'm in a single engine emergency I could care less if it will be an inconvenience to my passengers or my company having  hang a new engine on the plane at an outstation or even an airport that isn't even served by my airline, to include an top secret airforce base. The PIC's primary duty is to safeguard the lives of all soles on that plane.

ahmmmm.... see the post before yours....

ahmmmm.... ok you win. Thank's for pointing out my oversight.
Logged
bakeua
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2009, 02:42:04 PM »

I would think runway length would be the major consideration in this case.  Why bother making a single engine approach onto a 5700ft runway in SNA when you have runways twice that length only minutes away at LAX?  When you add the fact that LAX would have many more resources available, I'd bet the crew didn't have to labor to long on the decision to head straight for LAX.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2009, 04:43:26 PM »

When you add the fact that LAX would have many more resources available, I'd bet the crew didn't have to labor to long on the decision to head straight for LAX.
I agree. I would also venture to say that departure briefing between the pilots discussed such a contingency.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!