Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 09:10:22 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)
| | |-+  Flight AA-311 KAUS - Mar 9th 2009 & Flight AA-309 LGA - Mar 11 2009
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Flight AA-311 KAUS - Mar 9th 2009 & Flight AA-309 LGA - Mar 11 2009  (Read 22891 times)
kea001
Guest
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2009, 08:26:36 PM »

Indonesia's Flying Circus

"To say Indonesia's air travel industry has had a bad month is an understatement of astonishing proportions. On March 10, the ministry of transportation grounded all of the country's ageing McDonnell Douglas MD-90 passenger jets after a Lion Air flight skidded off the runway in a driving rainstorm at Jakarta's Sukarno-Hatta Airport."
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1765&Itemid=189&limit=1&limitstart=0
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2009, 09:03:44 PM »

They also refer to another MD-90 that had nose gear issues...

From report:
"Another ageing Lion Air MD-90 was unable to lower its nose gear at Batam's Hang Nadim Airport and skidded in on its nose."

"...the problem was that one of the levers for the wheel hatch was broken, which caused the plane's forward landing gear to stick."

Amazing...
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
kea001
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2009, 08:06:58 PM »

AAL Flight 309 Engine Failure May Have Been Caused By Runway Debris

American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith told Newsday company engineers inspecting the problem Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine observed damage “consistent” with engine failures caused by ingestion of foreign objects in similar incidents.
"To some trained eyes, it sure looked that way," Smith said.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d
Logged
Buzzard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2009, 03:48:36 PM »

You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2009, 05:59:37 PM »

AAL Flight 309 Engine Failure May Have Been Caused By Runway Debris

American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith told Newsday company engineers inspecting the problem Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine observed damage “consistent” with engine failures caused by ingestion of foreign objects in similar incidents.
"To some trained eyes, it sure looked that way," Smith said.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d


I'm not totally convinced on that...If an engine ingests a piece of F.O.D., the result is usually instantaneous. Its like if you throw a penny into a window fan. Or if not, they would have noticed something wrong on the main engine gauges.

Not saying that the report is false, I just think the engine would have failed on the takeoff roll, not the climb-out.

Have they identified where exactly these parts came from? I believe we were speculating it was the Aft Low Pressure Turbine Blade...
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 17, 2009, 06:20:25 PM »

For something to take out the aft low pressure turbine blade, I find it hard to believe that it is FOD.  That means it made its way through the fan, through the compressor and stator vanes, through the burner can, through the high pressure turbines, and all the way to the very last low pressure turbine.  Simcoe might say it happened this way, but I highly doubt it.  If it were FOD, it would more likely have come in through the back of the engine, which is also very unlikely.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2009, 06:24:29 PM »

For something to take out the aft low pressure turbine blade, I find it hard to believe that it is FOD.  That means it made its way through the fan, through the compressor and stator vanes, through the burner can, through the high pressure turbines, and all the way to the very last low pressure turbine.  Simcoe might say it happened this way, but I highly doubt it.  If it were FOD, it would more likely have come in through the back of the engine, which is also very unlikely.

That's what I'm saying! I find it more possible that it was just a part failure. That kind of thing happens...anyone remember United 232 Heavy??
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2009, 09:26:27 PM »

You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
Not quite.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2009, 10:25:05 PM »

You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
Not quite.

I agree with iflysky...but I was waiting for a pilot to back up my thinking.  grin

Wouldn't either pilot be fully qualified to handle the airplane in an engine out situation?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 10:32:09 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2009, 10:40:38 PM »

I agree with iflysky...but I was waiting for a pilot to back up my thinking.  grin

Wouldn't either pilot be fully qualified to handle the airplane in an engine out situation?

I was waiting for Buzzard to back up his statement with some sort of fact.  For all I know, that is American's way of handling QRH procedures, for the F/O to become flying pilot while the Captain runs the QRH.  That seems backwards to me, and also unnecessary as both pilots are equally trained in the aircraft.   huh
Logged

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

Posts: 8


« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2009, 11:45:41 PM »

It is the US way. It was instituted after the crash of an Eastern L-1011 in the everglades years ago. In that accident no one was flying the airplane, they were all working on the problem - A burned out landing gear bulb. Normally in the US we transfer positive control to the F/O. The idea is that its understood we can both fly the aircraft. The captain is tasked with managing the situation. Its easier to get the big picture as well as come up with a good game plan
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2009, 08:23:31 AM »

That does seem backwards to me too...if I was a Captain and something happened to my airplane, I think I'd want to take over flying, and let the F/O figure out what happened!  wink

But, I am not... cry

Nor am I versed in all the rules of flying.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 09:41:50 AM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2009, 09:21:02 PM »

It is the US way. It was instituted after the crash of an Eastern L-1011 in the everglades years ago. In that accident no one was flying the airplane, they were all working on the problem - A burned out landing gear bulb. Normally in the US we transfer positive control to the F/O. The idea is that its understood we can both fly the aircraft. The captain is tasked with managing the situation. Its easier to get the big picture as well as come up with a good game plan

Okay, so now I'm really confused here.  What you say "It is the US way" are you referring to USAirways?
Logged

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

Posts: 8


« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2009, 07:38:55 AM »

I don't know about carriers outside the USA. But that is the common practice for USA majors. Usually if an engine fails early down low, if the captain was flying he would hold onto the controls through the clean up. Then once stable and climbing  transfer positive control to the right seater.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2009, 02:20:51 PM »

I don't know about carriers outside the USA. But that is the common practice for USA majors. Usually if an engine fails early down low, if the captain was flying he would hold onto the controls through the clean up. Then once stable and climbing  transfer positive control to the right seater.

I'm not sure where you got your facts, but this is most definitely incorrect.  After having been at a national and regional airline for 5 1/2 years, I can assure you this is not some nationwide airline procedure.  I have many contacts at various airlines around the country, and none are familiar with what you describe.

Normal CRM procedure has one pilot flying the aircraft while the other is on the radios, checklists, etc.  In the event of a malfunction, it is standard to transfer control of the radio to the pilot flying while the pilot monitoring runs QRH procedures, communicates with flight attendants and passengers, talks to maintenance, etc.

The example of US1549 with the captain taking control of the airplane and radio when the f/o was flying is not a procedure, it was the PIC taking command of a very strickened aircraft.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!