PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Air Canada 767 Problems at Madrid (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629389-air-canada-767-problems-madrid.html)

diffident 3rd Feb 2020 15:05

Air Canada 767 Problems at Madrid
 
Sky News have just reported that an Air Canada 767 is preparing to make an emergency landing back at Madrid, after parts of the landing gear fell off and was ingested by an engine.

The flight is this one - https://www.flightradar24.com/ACA837/23be1953

It appears to be burning fuel at the moment, but certainly quite a situation developing there.

Airbubba 3rd Feb 2020 15:10

Tire burst on takeoff perhaps?

Didn't Air Canada famously disable the fuel dump on their B-763's?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f72f2902fc.jpg

theflyingbus 3rd Feb 2020 15:10

I’m sure it’s having to hold, to allow the Iberia regional aircraft to land-that’s just taxing out at BCN!

Lake1952 3rd Feb 2020 15:25

An overweight landing could obviously be a major problem if there has already been some landing gear/ tire damage.

The flight continues in a hold at low altitude and 340 kts about a hundred miles southwest of MAD.

diffident 3rd Feb 2020 15:27

Here's a live video feed of arrivals into Madrid:


Airbubba 3rd Feb 2020 15:46


Originally Posted by Lake1952 (Post 10678517)
The flight continues in a hold at low altitude and 340 kts about a hundred miles southwest of MAD.

Holding at 340 knots in a B-763 with a gear problem? That will burn some fuel. ;)

Delta had one of these B-767 takeoff incidents at Barajas with significant damage to the hydraulics a few years ago:

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20131205-0

ETOPS 3rd Feb 2020 16:03

Some early 767 models are not fitted with fuel dump - ask me how I know :rolleyes:

evansb 3rd Feb 2020 16:23

Flight Aware shows ACA837 holding at 7,600 feet ASL, groundspeed on outbound leg (southeast heading) of hold around 270 kts, on inbound leg (northwest heading) as high as 303 kts. The variation(s) are most likely due to winds.

jewitts 3rd Feb 2020 16:38

Circling for 4 hours. I wonder if they have informed the passengers about the predicament?

diffident 3rd Feb 2020 16:40


Originally Posted by jewitts (Post 10678564)
Circling for 4 hours. I wonder if they have informed the passengers about the predicament?

Someone on the flight has been tweeting, with a video of a Spanish fighter alongside inspecting the damage, so I would guess it would be difficult to hide the situation from the pax.

The chap said something about being told of a blown tyre. Here's some footage he's posted. His twitter is worth keeping an eye on as he seems to be continuing to tweet video from on board;



Here's a view from the ground of the fighter with the 767.


568 3rd Feb 2020 16:51

Holding at 340 knots
 
Didn't know if the gear was down, I assume it wasn't retracted after rotation, so my assumption is that the gear limit speed is 270 knots or m 0.82.

foxcharliep2 3rd Feb 2020 16:58


Originally Posted by jewitts (Post 10678564)
Circling for 4 hours. I wonder if they have informed the passengers about the predicament?

Passengers have been informed by crew at all times acc. to reports from pax in the a/c.

Tire burst and left engine u/s due to ingesting parts of gear.
Landing at 19:15 LT acc. to airport. On approach now.

foxcharliep2 3rd Feb 2020 17:01

Live broadcast here :

foxcharliep2 3rd Feb 2020 17:08

Just landed
FF and ES on the runway behind it. Looks well...

patrickal 3rd Feb 2020 17:08

Appears to have landed without incident.

Auxtank 3rd Feb 2020 18:03


Originally Posted by ETOPS (Post 10678546)
Some early 767 models are not fitted with fuel dump - ask me how I know :rolleyes:

Now, why did they do that? Genuinely interested to know.

Surely it wouldn't be a weight consideration. Was it part of certification - keeping it simpler, etc.

NWA SLF 3rd Feb 2020 18:13

Believe dump was eliminated when they added winglets but don't quote me on that one.

Twitter 3rd Feb 2020 18:15


Originally Posted by Auxtank (Post 10678634)
Now, why did they do that? Genuinely interested to know.

Surely it wouldn't be a weight consideration. Was it part of certification - keeping it simpler, etc.

So that the schoolkids in Campo Real won’t get sprayed maybe?

gearlever 3rd Feb 2020 18:16


Originally Posted by Auxtank (Post 10678634)
Now, why did they do that? Genuinely interested to know.

Surely it wouldn't be a weight consideration. Was it part of certification - keeping it simpler, etc.

A300 no fuel dump
A330, fuel dump system is an option

It has to do with the route network, flying mostly short sectors, no dump sys....

ETOPS 3rd Feb 2020 18:17

Not certain - caused me a couple of problems over the years.

Anyway congratulations to the Air Canada crew - good job!


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.