Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2016, 02:15:19 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  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] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Flight AA-311 KAUS - Mar 9th 2009 & Flight AA-309 LGA - Mar 11 2009  (Read 33958 times)
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1619


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2009, 07:00:31 PM »

Oh, nevermind.  I was thinking the 757 out in Cali from the other thread.  My mistake.

But yes, MD-80 series is junk!

Copy that on the Mad Dogs!

Yea, I was only linking the two MD-80's with the B757 as all being American Airlines equipment. wink
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 07:21:17 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
kea001
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2009, 07:51:32 PM »

But yes, MD-80 series is junk!

Even God thinks so.....

American MD82 near Houston on Mar 13th 2009, lightning strike, hole in the fuselage

"The crew reported a hole in the left side of the fuselage near the door indicating they didn't know, whether the structural integrity of the airplane had been compromised, declared emergency.."

Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=416787dc&opt=1

Friday the  13th...see I told you.. evil
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 07:53:17 PM by kea001 » Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1619


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2009, 09:48:21 PM »

WOW!!  shocked

March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!

Toss in the B757 from last month...not a great start to the year! I don't think I'll be flying American untill there luck changes!
Logged

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

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2009, 03:10:49 PM »


March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!

Just think back to last year when AA and DL had to ground their fleets due to AD compliance issues.


Funny story:
Was taxiing out of ORD and there was quite a line for departure.  The view was interesting with multitudes of MD80s parked at the AA hangar.  This day, C90 was being plagued with radar problems, and departures would be frequently halted for a few mins while things were sorted out.  Pilots in line were understanding of the problem, but were starting to get annoyed by the occasional departure stops. 

Somebody jumped on the freq and asked "You still having problems with your wonderful radar?"

Without missing a beat, tower came back with "You're not flying an MD80 are you?  Oh wait, that's a no."
Logged

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

Posts: 1619


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2009, 07:51:44 PM »


March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!

Just think back to last year when AA and DL had to ground their fleets due to AD compliance issues.


It was the electrical system on the MD-80's if I'm not mistaken...

And your story is pretty amusing! grin

« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 07:54:46 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
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: 1619


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: 1619


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: 708



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: 1619


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: 179


« 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: 1619


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: 708



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: 1619


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: 708



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: 708



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
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1619


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2009, 08:16:09 PM »

I spoke with my Captain friend over at NWA. He said at NWA it depends on the situation. In the event of having to shut down an engine, the Captain would transfer flying duties to the F/O, and the Captain runs the QRH. He said, no offense to any F/Os in the house, it is to make sure the correct powerplant is shut down, and that the procedures are handled correctly. After the aircraft is stable, the Captain has his choice if he wants to take the airplane over, or if he has confidence in the F/O and his ability to handle the airplane in an emergency situation.

Now a situation like 1549, where the aircraft lost all thrust capabilities, the Captain would take over flying the airplane 100%.

Like I said, it depends on the situation. Utilize CRM to its fullest potential.

This is what he told me, just thought I'd add that to the mix. 
Logged

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

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2009, 08:56:22 PM »

Thats an interesting way to do it.

At my company, when it comes to shutting down an engine, or switching off a generator, or anything else that significantly effects the operation of the aircraft and can be confused with another switch, both pilots participate in the QRH.

For example, let's say you get a left engine fire indication.  The pilot flying assumes control of the radio and asks for the "Immediate Action Items" for a left engine fire.  The non-flying pilot then pulls out the QRH and starts reading the procedure (all QRH, and any checklist, procedures must be read aloud for CVR confirmation).

The non-flying pilot will read "Left engine thrust lever - confirm and idle" and place his hand on the left thrust lever and keep it there without doing or saying anything.  The pilot flying will then look at the EICAS once again to confirm that it is indeed the LEFT engine that is on fire, then look at the non-flying pilot's hand to make sure it is indeed on the LEFT thrust lever.  If it is, the pilot flying will say "Left engine thrust lever confirmed, idle."  At that point, the non-flying pilot moves the thrust lever to idle and both pilots monitor the aircraft to make sure the bad engine is indeed the one that has been commanded to idle. 

This banter back and forth between the pilots then continues on to shut the engine off, turn the fuel pump off, push the fire push button, and discharge the fire bottles.  It is all done very slowly and deliberately to make sure no mistakes are made. 

That's just the way my company does it.  Many other airlines use a very similar approach to it, apparently NWA doesn't.
Logged

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

Posts: 1619


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2009, 09:07:08 PM »


At my company, when it comes to shutting down an engine, or switching off a generator, or anything else that significantly effects the operation of the aircraft and can be confused with another switch, both pilots participate in the QRH.


Absolutely. CRM plays a huge part in any decision making on a flight deck. I hope you don't think I meant at NWA the Captain is God, and his word is final...



Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
Buzzard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2009, 11:36:48 AM »

I was just making the point that you can't assume the copilot is working the radio. This is the procedure we have always used:

EMERGENCY ABNORMAL CHECKLIST
The Captain must take  action to establish and maintain airplane
control while determining a course of action.  If the First Officer is
flying, taking over control of the airplane may be required. Conversely, delegating
the physical flying of the airplane to the First Officer may enhance the Captain's
problem-solving processes and add to his  command of the situationUpon making this decision and once airplane control has been established, the
Captain will determine the nature of the problem and call for the appropriate
checklist.
Logged
athaker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288



« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2009, 09:25:53 AM »

In watching the congressional hearing from flight 1549 the Captain justified his reasons for taking over the aircraft...Basically along the lines of - I have more experience in the A320 so I flew the plane, and my F/O more recently had to certify for the A320 so he learned the emergency procedures more recently as well. therefore he is better suited to work the checklist since it is fresh with him.

obviously not a quote...but it supports your guys' argument that it depends on the situation, since he made no mention of any "standard procedure"
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 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!