airtraffic

Author Topic: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing  (Read 9567 times)

Offline Mittelos Bioscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« on: June 16, 2009, 12:34:28 PM »
Hi,

I'm new to the forum (and an amateur at that) but I'd like to ask if anyone caught yesterday's communications between ATC and AA1317 en route from DCA to DFW. I was on the flight and the following happened:

Equipment was an MD80; takeoff was on schedule, though we had a short delay because traffic going west was being spaced. Takeoff was to the south from DCA at around 5:25PM with no noticeable winds but many clouds and scattered showers. About one to two minutes after takeoff, I distinctly heard the right engine being shut down and noticed that we halted our climb. About one minute after that, the pilot announced there was a problem with one engine and that "we're going to land in Dulles to check it out". We flew low with the single engine and turned to land on the left-most runway coming in from the north. Landing was very smooth actually, although at a speed much higher than normal; it took a while for the plane to slow down. Obviously, with the overweight landing (we flew less than five minutes) the rescue teams were out in full and followed the plane very closely. I thought it was pretty standard but the pilot later told us that what happened was that a warning light came on in the cockpit informing of a fire in the right engine (thus the reason for the shut down). The fire crews examined the engine and found no evidence of fire, though they did have to put a couple of big fans on the wheels to cool them down (brakes got really hot it seems because of the high inertia). Later, when back at the terminal, I talked to a mechanic who described "lots of loose fiberglass insulation which is used to cover pipes and wires in the engine; it was just falling out when we opened the engine and it looked burnt". My speculation is that this material started smoking causing the fire detection warning to come on (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'd really like to listen to what went on in the cockpit and to see if I missed anything. At any rate, I think the pilot deserves praise for his excellent landing under those conditions (better than I've experienced on many occasions with a fully functional plane). Crew was also very professional calming people during those minutes of uncertainty.

I also wonder whether I'll get frequent flier miles for the flight (DCA to IAD must be about 35 miles?)... :-)

Thanks for any input.



kea001

  • Guest
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2009, 12:50:49 PM »
Incident: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=41b438a9&opt=0


KIAD Tower atc audio:
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/american-md83-at-washington-on-jun-15th-2009-engine-failure/

NOTE: I believe the initial request to divert was on a frequency that we don't have.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2009, 04:39:54 PM by kea001 »

Offline ect76

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • EGPH
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2009, 04:39:17 PM »
Just wanted to note the reason for taking ages to slow down and the overheated brakes. Because of the defective engine, the pilots wouldn't be able to use reverse thrust thus increasing the stopping distance slightly. Also, as you noted, the heavy landing wouldn't have helped!

Oh - And just noticed the user name - Fan of Lost, are we?  :mrgreen:

Offline Mittelos Bioscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2009, 09:03:49 AM »

Oh - And just noticed the user name - Fan of Lost, are we?  :mrgreen:

Absolutely!! I just decided to keep my nickname from the Lost Forum I post in (Dark UFO).

Just an additional note that worries me about American and its handling of canceled flights and incidents. My post referred to the first part of my journey home from Washington to Santiago, Chile, on Monday. After an incredible series of additional delays and canceled flights I am still not home! (It's noon Wednesday). I managed to get to Buenos Aires (where I am now) and I am about to board a Lan Chile flight to Santiago.

I worry that the company is starting to lose it....

Offline bn2av8r

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2009, 12:12:53 PM »
Just wanted to note the reason for taking ages to slow down and the overheated brakes. Because of the defective engine, the pilots wouldn't be able to use reverse thrust thus increasing the stopping distance slightly.

Are you sure?

Not having flown the MD80, I can't say for certainty. But I bet the reason for the faster approach speed was due to the selection of a flap setting less than full. Also, there should have been no problem whatsoever using the good engine's reverse thrust capability.

Offline atcman23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2009, 02:35:47 PM »
Most airline procedures prohibit the use of reverse thrust when one (or more0)engines have failed.  Plus, the effectiveness of only one reverse thrust would not have slowed the aircraft much.  It is pilot discretion on flaps, and you do not have to perform every landing with full flaps.  Depending on the wind, the pilot may have elected to go with less than full flaps.  But since the plane took off and suffered an engine failure, you can bet that the aircraft's weight factored into a faster than normal landing speed and may also be why the landing was completed with less than full flaps.

While I've only flown Cessna's (152 and 172) I can say that most of my landings were completed with less than full flaps.

Offline ect76

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • EGPH
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2009, 02:42:43 PM »
Must say, I thought the same as atcman on the reversers. I was under the impression that in an engine-out situation most wouldn't use reversers!

Offline bn2av8r

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2009, 10:04:25 PM »
Most airline procedures prohibit the use of reverse thrust when one (or more0)engines have failed.  Plus, the effectiveness of only one reverse thrust would not have slowed the aircraft much.  It is pilot discretion on flaps, and you do not have to perform every landing with full flaps.  Depending on the wind, the pilot may have elected to go with less than full flaps.  But since the plane took off and suffered an engine failure, you can bet that the aircraft's weight factored into a faster than normal landing speed and may also be why the landing was completed with less than full flaps.

While I've only flown Cessna's (152 and 172) I can say that most of my landings were completed with less than full flaps.

Do you have a list of those airlines that prohibit that?  Because the last two I've flown for didn't have that restriction.  And it is MOST DEFINITELY not pilot's discretion on what flap setting to use.  Every QRH I can think of that relates to a single engine approach and landing dictates what flap setting to use.  The reason you don't use full flaps on landing during a SE app. and landing is that there is always that chance you might have to go missed.  There is just too much drag associated with full flaps to even attempt to go around on one engine and meet all associated climb gradient restrictions. 


Offline cessna157

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
    • facebook
Re: American 1317 DCA-DFW June 15th emergency landing
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2009, 11:50:23 AM »
Most airline procedures prohibit the use of reverse thrust when one (or more0)engines have failed.  Plus, the effectiveness of only one reverse thrust would not have slowed the aircraft much.  It is pilot discretion on flaps, and you do not have to perform every landing with full flaps.  Depending on the wind, the pilot may have elected to go with less than full flaps.  But since the plane took off and suffered an engine failure, you can bet that the aircraft's weight factored into a faster than normal landing speed and may also be why the landing was completed with less than full flaps.

While I've only flown Cessna's (152 and 172) I can say that most of my landings were completed with less than full flaps.

Do you have a list of those airlines that prohibit that?  Because the last two I've flown for didn't have that restriction.  And it is MOST DEFINITELY not pilot's discretion on what flap setting to use.  Every QRH I can think of that relates to a single engine approach and landing dictates what flap setting to use.  The reason you don't use full flaps on landing during a SE app. and landing is that there is always that chance you might have to go missed.  There is just too much drag associated with full flaps to even attempt to go around on one engine and meet all associated climb gradient restrictions. 

I couldn't have said it better myself.  For all airlines, there are set procedures that dictate when to do what. 

On the single engine reverse thrust issue:  Most do not prohibit the usage of it.  Many do not even recommend not using it.  It is usually worded in a way to question whether its use is necessary.  Keep in mind, there are many many engine/aircraft combinations here.  At my airline, upon landing single engine, the QRH is worded "If required, use remaining thrust reverser carefully upon landing."  In my experience, 1 thrust reverser isn't going to decelerate you much, but it isn't going to twist you much unless you're on a slippery surface.  Usually, when I was landing single engine, I'd just crack the remaining engine into idle reverse just to keep it from pushing me along.

On the flap issue, same thing goes, especially in an emergency/unusual situation.  The QRH is the bible, and the word of the lord (read: FAA/Aircraft manufacturer/Airline).  If it says to do something, you do it, unless you truely believe, deep down in your heart, that you have thought of something that all of those people missed.

As was stated, single engine usually has a lower flap setting and higher airspeed just due to the possibility of a go-around (ie flaps just have to travel less).  In all CRJs, normal landing flap setting is 45, with immediate selection of Flaps 8 on go-around.  Single engine landing is flaps 20, with immediate selection of Flaps 8 on go-around.  The flap lever is actually built with this in mind.  I know the newer (less than 20 years old ish?) Boeings have this as well in 2 different spots.  There is a detent on the flap lever, requiring a change in motion to get past it.  This basically allows the pilot to smack the lever, and it will travel to the detent and stop.  (sorry, that's a bad way to explain it.  Should I elaborate?)