Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AA 757 departed runway at ORD - no injuries

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AA 757 departed runway at ORD - no injuries

Reply

Old 22nd Sep 2008, 20:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 1AU
Posts: 1
AA 757 departed runway at ORD - no injuries

News reports AAL268 SEA-JFK diverted to ORD due to electrical problems, possibly a 757. Anyone have further details?
coolie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Sep 2008, 21:40
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,410
AA B-752 Off the Runway in ORD

Looks like the plane the guy asked about earlier overran the runway with no reported injuries. BA and VS did go arounds behind it from what I heard on the ATC freqs.


American flight makes emergency landing at O'Hare

September 22, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
An American Airlines flight en route from Seattle to New York City made an emergency landing at O'Hare International Airport on Monday afternoon after reported electrical problems on board.

American Flight 268, a Boeing 757 bound from Seattle-Tacoma International to JFK, made the emergency stop after an indicator light came on in the cockpit, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory.

The plane landed about 1:42 p.m. on Runway 22 Right and was stopped in the runway's overrun area, Cory said. Passengers were deplaning, as of 2:05 p.m.

Fire dispatch reports said the plane was off the runway and emergency crews were checking the safety of passengers. No injuries were reported as of 2 p.m., but Cory referred all inquiries to American.

American Airlines did not return requests for comment as of 2 p.m.

A spokesman for the city Department of Aviation would say only that American Flight 268 was experiencing "electrical problems."

Fire Media Affairs Asst. Director Eve Rodriguez said the plane experienced radio problems en route to the airport. An EMS Plan 1 and still-and-box response were called at the airport.

The FAA will be investigating the situation, Cory said.

________________________________

Airliner overruns O'Hare runway, no injuries
50 minutes ago

CHICAGO (AP) — Aviation officials say an American Airlines Boeing 757 has blown a tire and run off a runway during an emergency landing at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the airline say no injuries have been reported in the Monday afternoon incident.
22L at ORD has EMAS, does 22R?

Last edited by Airbubba; 22nd Sep 2008 at 22:08.
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 04:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ---
Posts: 274
BA and VS land on the 22R? are you sure?.
ray cosmic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 06:11
  #4 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 775
I saw it happen. AA 757 went right off the end of 22R into the grass. Noone was injured and they were going pretty slow when they left the pavement. They blew a tire and skidded to the left a bit and off onto the dirt. Passengers walked off via airstair.
weasil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 08:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 21
I don't think that 22R has EMAS yet, it's just the one runway as far as I remember.
BTW we stick the BD A330 in on 22R, and comfortably come off at A (used to be C). Autobrake Med, and Max reverse works a treat.
pointless username is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 10:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,123
I've been in there on the BMI A330 on a number of occasions. Stops a treat and usually vacates with 2000ft to go.

I'd be interested to learn why the 757 didn't stop.
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 11:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 13
No problems to use 22R for a 340 on a normal day. I'm sure BA wouldn't have any issues either in a 777 or 747.
BleedingOn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 14:55
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,410
Here's an audio clip of ORD scanner traffic around the time of the incident:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ko...2008-1830Z.mp3

Around 10:55 into the clip AA 268 says he's declaring an emergency, seems to know he'll need a lot of runway and extra time to get off. Loss of left hydraulics with no PTU perhaps?

At 14:41 in the audio clip BA 295 gets a go around followed by similar instructions to UA 679 and VS 39, not sure which runway they were going to initially.

No problems to use 22R for a 340 on a normal day. I'm sure BA wouldn't have any issues either in a 777 or 747.
Yep, 772's and 340's do operate off the 'B' runway in NRT which is shorter than 22R. Still, was 22L not available for an emergency landing? It's over 10,000 feet long...

Last edited by Airbubba; 23rd Sep 2008 at 15:18.
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 15:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Just the nose gear was off the prepared surface by a few feet.

Just saw a better pic. Looks like all the wheels are off, but no apparent damage.

Last edited by Roadtrip; 11th Oct 2008 at 21:21.
Roadtrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 16:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,410
Just the nose gear was off the prepared surface by a few feet.
From the morning paper:

The flight arrived at O'Hare about 1:45 p.m. and blew a tire as it touched down; the aircraft skidded off the side of the runway, leaving the main nose gear and the left main landing gear in some grass, according to Elizabeth Isham Cory, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Diverted flight skids off runway :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Transportation
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 17:52
  #11 (permalink)  
IGh
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 251
? Electrical Problem ?

Perhaps not relevant to this B757 case --

??? Electrical problems???

From slot#1:
“... diverted to ORD due to electrical problems ...”
Excerpt from press story in slot #10:
“... arrived at O'Hare about 1:45 p.m. and blew a tire as it touched down; the aircraft skidded ...”
In past examples of skid / tire-failure, an electrical problem had subtly depowered (failed) the Antiskid input to Brake System. No problem, unless (large aircraft) a pilot needs to apply any brakes during landing roll-out.
IGh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 20:25
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,410
Some observations from a grateful blogger:

That’s when the flight attendent came through. “We’re having a little electrical trouble with the PA. The captain thinks it’s important the he communciate with the flight crew, so we’re going to make an unscheduled landing at O’Hare. We’ll get a mechanical crew on it ASAP. It’s NOT an emergency, it’s just unscheduled.”

I’ve been through worse landings. The plane bounced once, maybe twice and then the brakes went on, hard. Really, I’ve been through worse. But when I looked out the window, a bunch of heavy emergency equipment was heading our way. Fast. I didn’t think it was for us at first, but it was.

The flight attendents came through again saying that there’d been some kind of electrical problem. The pilot landed the plane the old fashioned way, in an odd angle on the grass. I could see tarmac and runway under the wing on my right, lots of grass to the left. And loads of blinky lights, firemen in heavy gear…

We sat for 10, maybe 20 minutes. The air conditioning was dead, the plane got really hot, really fast. The flight attendent told us we were waiting for the ramps, they’d be taking us by bus to the terminal. But we couldn’t get off the plane until they turned the engines off and the left one wasn’t shutting down. The fire trucks shuffled around outside, the firemen stood nearby with extinguishers that looked ridiculously small next to the huge plane wing. The pilot walked through the cabin, looking dead serious and a little old, asking if everyone was okay. He stood chatting with a group in the back of the plane, a round of applause went up as he headed back up the aisle to the cockpit.

No one panicked or freaked out. The flight attendents were like angels, perfectly calm and in good humor. The passengers sat and joked, I snapped pictures of the fire crew out the window and as they boarded the plane. Finally the left engined whirled to a halt and a cheer went up in the cabin.
“Unscheduled Landing” | nerd's eye view
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Oct 2008, 16:20
  #13 (permalink)  
IGh
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 251
? No investigation? -- Prelim later on 24 Oct

From press quote by NTSB spokesman:

"... the National Transportation Safety Board will try to determine what caused the mishap, said NTSB spokesman Keith Holloway...."

As of October 10th, the Board's web-site does NOT show even a preliminary mention of this mishap. There have been numerous similar scenarios investigated by the Board.

Not sure, but as of today, I suspect that neither the Board nor FAA will investigate, and there will be no report -- hope the Board does soon post a preliminary report, to show their intent to do their job.

= = = = = / / Edit / / / = = =

24 Oct08, prelim' posted
CHI08IA292
NTSB Identification: CHI08IA292
...
September 22, 2008, at 1342 central daylight time, a Boeing 757-223, N197AN ... American ... 268, diverted to ... O’Hare ... due to electrical system anomalies. During the landing on runway 22R (7,500 feet by 150 feet), the airplane veered off the left side of the runway resulting in minor damage to the landing gear. ... originated from the Seattle ... intended destination ... JFK ...

While en route the flightcrew received an AIR/GRD SYS message, an illumination of the standby power bus OFF light, and several advisory and status messages on the engine indicating and crew alert system (EICAS). ... QRH ... AIR/GND SYS message. The flight crew then followed the procedure referenced in the QRH for STANDBY BUS OFF by turning the standby power selector to the BAT position. The QRH procedure also referenced that, "The battery will provide bus power for approximately 30 minutes." The airplane systems stabilized with several items inoperative and the captain contacted maintenance technical support and subsequently elected to continue the flight on battery power. The flightcrew then reviewed the MAIN BATTERY CHARGER procedure referenced in the QRH.

Approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes later, while in cruise flight, the battery power was depleted at which time several cockpit electrical systems began to fail. ... over western Michigan and the captain elected ... divert to ORD. Also, the flight attendants discovered that public address (PA) and the cabin/cockpit interphone systems were inoperative. A flight attendant wrote a note and slipped it under the cockpit door to inform the flight crew of their communication problems. A short time later, the cabin crew was informed that they were diverting to ORD. One of the flight attendants then walked through the aisle informing the passengers of the unscheduled landing at Chicago.

While aligned with the runway to land, the flightcrew declared an emergency with the control tower as a precaution. As the airplane neared the runway on final approach, the flightcrew discovered that the elevator and standby elevator trim systems were inoperative. The captain then assisted the first officer on the flight controls and the approach to land was continued. The systems required to slow the airplane on the runway appeared to indicate normal, and with the elevator control issues the flightcrew did not want to perform a go-around to land on a longer runway. Pitch control of the airplane was difficult so the flightcrew elected to stop the flap extension at 20 degrees. The touchdown was smooth despite the control issues, however, the thrust reversers and spoilers did not deploy. The captain attempted to manually deploy the thrust reversers, but still was not sure if they deployed. The captain was concerned about the brake functionality and accumulator pressure so he made one smooth application of the brakes, which did not “perform well.” Due to obstructions off the end of the runway, the captain elected to veer the airplane off the left side of the runway into the grass.

As the airplane touched down approximately 2,500 feet down the runway witnesses heard loud pops. Skid marks from the left main gear were evident near the point of touchdown and 165 feet further down the runway skid marks from the right main gear were present. These skid marks were visible for the entire length of the runway up until the airplane departed the pavement. The airplane came to rest with all three main landing gear off the left side of the pavement and the nose of the airplane came to rest approximately 100 feet prior to the end of the blast pad pavement which extended 397 feet past the departure end of the runway.

After coming to a stop, the flightcrew was not able to shut the engines down with either the fuel cutoff valves or by extending the fire handles. The engines were subsequently shutdown by depressing the fire handles. The passengers were then deplaned through the L1 and R4 doors using portable stairs.

Post incident investigation revealed a failure of the B1/B2 contacts in the K106 electrical relay. With the standby power selector in the AUTO position, this failure would have resulted in a loss of power to the battery bus and the DC standby bus, which would have resulted in the AIR/GND SYS message and illumination of the standby power bus OFF light which the flight crew received.

With the standby power selector in the BAT position, as selected by the flight crew, the main battery provided power to the hot battery bus, the battery bus, the AC standby bus, and the DC standby bus. In addition, the main battery charger was not receiving power, and thus the battery was not being recharged. When main battery power was depleted, all 4 of the aforementioned buses became unpowered.

Last edited by IGh; 24th Oct 2008 at 15:55.
IGh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Oct 2008, 15:05
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 19
NTSB reviews jet's skid landing at O'Hare - USATODAY.com

The pilots had switched to battery power shortly after leaving Seattle when electrical problems developed. The batteries last for about 30 minutes, but the pilots continued toward their destination until the jet's electrical systems began failing about an hour and 40 minutes later.
glob99 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Oct 2008, 15:27
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,479
There's got to be more to the story than the crew not following their QRH. Come one Seattle to Chicago is about 3 hours. Which means, if the story were true the crew flew for well over two hours without main electrical power.

Could this be more media hype?
captjns is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Oct 2008, 16:20
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,410
The airplane systems stabilized with several items inoperative and the captain contacted maintenance technical support and subsequently elected to continue the flight on battery power.
I agree, this just doesn't sound right...
Airbubba is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Oct 2008, 19:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 214
Is it possible they thought the RAT would carry them through the problem?

From an unamed source.
The 757 operations manual states the following:

"The ram air trubine (RAT) hydralic pump is located in the body fairing
aft of the right main gear. Inflight the RAT automatically deploys into
the airstream when airspeed is above 80 knots and both engines fail. The
RAT then supplies power to the center system. Once extended, the RAT can
only be retracted on the ground. At speeds above 130 knots, the RAT pro-
vides adequate power for normal center syste[ operation. A Ram Air Turbine
Pressure Light indicates the RAT is providing hydraulic power. The UNLKD
light indicates teh RAT is not locked in the stowed position. Manual control
for extending the RAT is provided by the guarded Ram Air Turbine Switch."

The center hydralic system includes the center autopilot servos, spoilers,
elevators, rudder, yaw dampers, stab trim, and elevator feel. Note that it
doesn't handle the landing gear.
Longtimer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Oct 2008, 20:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 171
The rat supplies hydraulic pressure not electrical power.
Junkflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Oct 2008, 00:55
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 1,897
With the standby power selector in the BAT position, as selected by the flight crew, the main battery provided power to the hot battery bus, the battery bus, the AC standby bus, and the DC standby bus. In addition, the main battery charger was not receiving power, and thus the battery was not being recharged. When main battery power was depleted, all 4 of the aforementioned buses became unpowered.

**********************************************************

It's not that they wouldn't have "main electrical power"

R and L AC were fine.

Battery's powering the standby AC/DC, batt bus and hot batt bus. As long as you have a battery you'll be fine.

But with the Stby power switch in the BAT position the battery charger is disconnected.

How long should you expect the battery to last? Uh, 30 minutes anyone? It lasted 90-100 minutes.
misd-agin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Oct 2008, 01:56
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 187
It appears that, other than the BAT SB discharge light, there were no other abnormal electrical indications. Once all 4 busses failed, they realized they had a total different set of problems than what the QRH led them to believe. They didn't want to go around to a longer runway with the flight control difficulties. All told, an excellent outcome. Well done guys.

73
aa73 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service