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

Newark airport emergency

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

Newark airport emergency

Old 29th Jun 2019, 16:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: halifax
Age: 55
Posts: 26
Newark airport emergency

Back door is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 16:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
I think the article pretty well covers it. What more do you need?
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 16:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,834
United 2098 LGA-IAH diverted to EWR landing at about 1228Z.

The plane appears to have gone off the right side of the runway.

From local news WABC:

Plane flying from LaGuardia to Houston makes emergency landing at Newark
Updated an hour ago
NEWARK, New Jersey (WABC) -- An airplane flying from LaGuardia Airport to Houston, Texas, made an emergency landing at Newark International Airport after the plane experienced a brake problem, the FAA confirmed.

United Airlines flight 2098, an Airbus A320, landed on Runway 22L around 8:46 a.m. [actually N837UA, an A319 landing at 8:28 am - Airbubba] Saturday, and the two left main tires blew when landing. The plane also experienced "other structural damage," according to Port Authority.

Passengers were deplaned via slides, according to the FAA, but the number of passengers aboard the plane is unknown. They were taken by bus to Terminal C.

United spokesperson said in a statement that the plane experienced a "mechanical issue upon take-off."

"Our pilots reacted quickly to ensure the safety of the aircraft and our customers," the statement read.

At the time, all arrivals and departures were canceled but have since resumed, the airport tweeted. Travelers should expect delays.

United said there were no reported injuries, but Port Authority said a few minor injuries were reported.

The FAA is investigating the incident.

United said it is making arraignments [sic] [to] get customers to their final destination.

Just last weekend,
United Airlines Flight 627 partially skidded off the runway at Newark Airport, temporarily shutting down the airport. The plane also had tired [sic] issues during landing.


https://abc7ny.com/plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-newark-airport/5370975/

Last edited by Airbubba; 29th Jun 2019 at 17:14.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 16:51
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 468
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 17:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 75
Posts: 9
Why wouldnít they put it into JFK or SWF? Of course itís more convenient for maintenance, but they effectively shut their hub and inconvenienced many more flights. And a full evac. Interesting.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 18:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post
Why wouldnít they put it into JFK or SWF? Of course itís more convenient for maintenance, but they effectively shut their hub and inconvenienced many more flights. And a full evac. Interesting.
The sole responsibility of this crew was to get this plane safely on the ground and not to be concerned about the effects on the schedule at EWR.
Lake1952 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 18:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 75
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Lake1952 View Post
The sole responsibility of this crew was to get this plane safely on the ground and not to be concerned about the effects on the schedule at EWR.
Iím so glad you were here to clear that up. Actually, thatís the job of their operational control center. All things being equal, they kind of hosed their hub when an equally suitable airport was available.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 19:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 190
Actually, thatís the job of their operational control center.
Really? So you are saying that in an emergency the Captain has no say in where they divert to?
Pistonprop is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 21:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 141
A question, what was the urgency to get the aircraft on the ground with a known brake problem? Was it pissing hydraulic fluid? What created this need? If the gear is up, why not continue on to Houston? Houston has some mighty long runways and the weight would be much lighter.

On who controls United diversions, maybe twenty years ago or so, the Captain lost the say in were to take a broken jet. I don't recall all the facts, but it had something to do with a DC-8 that ran out of fuel trying to land at Portland, Or. Maybe some of you historic accident with knowledge could comment.
mustangsally is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 22:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 0
The reports indicate that there was a tire failure on takeoff with subsequent smoke and fumes entering the cabin. Now, those smoke and fumes could have been relatively harmless aftereffects of the blown tires or it could have been the beginning of an uncontained fire in the wheel well. The aircraft was evacuated after landing using the slides, so that gives you an idea of how serious they considered the problem. Once there is a hint of an uncontrolled fire, the number one job of the crew was to get the aircraft on the ground as quickly and safely as possible, and any inconvenience to the airport should not have even entered their minds.
yoko1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 22:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,834
Listening to the tapes, UA2098 told departure that they had a 'hydraulic issue', they were declaring an emergency and the new destination was EWR. No mention of a possible tire burst on takeoff, you would think that LGA would want to check for FOD on the runway perhaps? Do UA A319's have brake temps or tire pressure indications? On widebodies these usually give you an indication of a blown tire in my experience.

25,000 pounds of fuel, 133 POB's, they were given immediate vectors for the ILS 22L but needed more time to 'troubleshoot' so they took vectors for another try. Tower asked if they anticipated any difficulty exiting the runway, UA2098 said no but they wanted the trucks standing by just in case. After UA2098 went off the side of the runway, the airport was closed, all aircraft hold position and monitor the radio.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 22:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 250
What I find puzzling about these reports is that no condition worthy of an emergency evacuation of the aircraft has been cited. The emergency (slide) evacuation of an aircraft almost always involves injuries to a varying degree and is not ordered unless the cause of the emergency landing is still developing/worsening. The only thing I can think of that would warrant an emergency evacuation of a safely landed and stopped aircraft would be the threat of fire. The responding airport fire commander is key to assessing the situation regarding the exterior of the aircraft and conveying his/her observations to the aircraft's captain for the captain's decision on whether or not to evacuate.

By the way, the United DC-8 crash in Oregon that you mentioned occurred in December of 1978. That was UAL 173 that ran out of fuel after stooging around the Portland area for more than an hour, while the flight crew attempted to diagnose a problem with the landing gear. The captain became fixated on the landing gear problem and ignored or discounted numerous remarks from his First Officer and Flight Engineer (remember flight engineers?) concerning their deteriorating fuel state. Of 189 souls on board, it was miraculous that "only" 10 died during a nighttime deadstick landing in a built up suburban area (the plane narrowly missed a multi-story apartment building as I recall). This was one of the many accidents that lead to the development of Cockpit Resource Management (now called Crew Resource Management) programs. The irony of this accident was that, while not showing "three green", the gear was actually down and locked.

Cheers,
Grog
capngrog is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 23:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Just east of KMCC
Posts: 18
UA 173 in Portland, OR

I was on that flight. I was sorely tempted to go up (from NorCal) to Portland for the 40th this past December but chickened out. My recollections are few - I was in seat 33F (?) or whatever was 2 from the last row. By the time the fuel issue surfaced (engines quitting) we were on approach and there had already been preparations in the cabin for the landing gear not down. After the lights went out the only noise I remember was the FAs all shouting the crash lines they were taught. There were bright blue-green flashes when we went through the power lines and in the flashes I remember seeing seats and insulation coming towards me (although it was a plane length away it seemed right in front of me). No assistance by UA then or later, no apology nor any contact ever came but my suitcase did arrive at home in Hawaii a month later by taxi, smashed flat and in a heavy clear plastic bag. That was my last flight on UA in fact.
towrope is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2019, 23:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,298
Originally Posted by mustangsally View Post
On who controls United diversions, maybe twenty years ago or so, the Captain lost the say in were to take a broken jet. I don't recall all the facts, but it had something to do with a DC-8 that ran out of fuel trying to land at Portland, Or. Maybe some of you historic accident with knowledge could comment.
UA173 came down on approach to 28L at Portland. PDX was the intended destination of the flight, and there's no suggestion in the report that the Captain had expressed a wish to land elsewhere and had been overruled by UA Ops.

I'd be surprised if they did today either.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 00:21
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver,Co USA
Age: 73
Posts: 330
The captain controls where a UAL aircraft with emergency diverts. Operations makes suggestions. For weather diverts it's different. Operations tells you where to go, but you can always refuse. I only had one emergency diversion at United. I told ops where I was going. They suggested somewhere else. I refused and labded where I wanted. I couple of months later my boss called me up and said someone had a complaint about what I did andm he had to pretend to investigate. I explained my position, and he said OK, and that was then last I heard of it.
Rick777 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 02:59
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by towrope View Post
I was on that flight. I was sorely tempted to go up (from NorCal) to Portland for the 40th this past December but chickened out. My recollections are few - I was in seat 33F (?) or whatever was 2 from the last row. By the time the fuel issue surfaced (engines quitting) we were on approach and there had already been preparations in the cabin for the landing gear not down. After the lights went out the only noise I remember was the FAs all shouting the crash lines they were taught. There were bright blue-green flashes when we went through the power lines and in the flashes I remember seeing seats and insulation coming towards me (although it was a plane length away it seemed right in front of me). No assistance by UA then or later, no apology nor any contact ever came but my suitcase did arrive at home in Hawaii a month later by taxi, smashed flat and in a heavy clear plastic bag. That was my last flight on UA in fact.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
cappt is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 03:00
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango View Post
I think the article pretty well covers it. What more do you need?
I'd be interested to see how much hand-carry came off during the evac.
Surely in a civilised, compliant, western country that would be "none"?
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 03:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
I'd be interested to see how much hand-carry came off during the evac.
Really, why?
Smythe is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 03:55
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 683
Originally Posted by Smythe View Post
Really, why?
Given they were not thrown into an emergency, the crew should have be able to stress the "leave the baggage behind" before landing.

So yes it would be interesting.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2019, 04:14
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 468
I find the questioning of why the pilot didn't choose to divert to JFK or SWF in order to avoid hosing a UA hub to be unbelievable. First, the pilot may not have anticipated that the landing would cause any runway damage -- but even this in immaterial and probably never crossed the pilot's mind. Because EWR is a UA hub, the pilot probably has lots of experience landing there. UA doesn't fly at all to SWF or anymore to JFK; so both of these airports would be unknowns (or at least unfamiliars). C'mon guys, if you are doing an emergency divert, it is for safety reasons -- and being familiar with landing at a particular airport is a big boost to safety.
SeenItAll is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.