American Airlines DC9 landing incident at O'Hare
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American Airlines DC9 landing incident at O'Hare
Chicago Tribune story here
Disabled jet makes safe landing at O’Hare
By Jason Meisner
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 20, 2006, 8:26 AM CDT
No injuries were reported this morning after a disabled American Airlines jet made a safe emergency landing at O'Hare International Airport.
The pilot of American Airlines Flight 1740, which originated from Los Angeles, notified the O'Hare control tower at about 6:15 a.m. that the plane had no working nose gear, Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Kristen Cabanban said.
There were 131 passengers and five Chicago-based crew members on board the plane, said John Hotard, a spokesman for American Airlines. Hotard said upon approach to O'Hare, the plane first flew by the tower for a visual inspection.
"There was a flyby in which they passed the tower, but the tower could not confirm whether the nose gear was down," Hotard said.
The Chicago Fire Department instituted a standby response calling five ambulances to the scene and surrounding the runway with emergency equipment, fire Chief Kevin MacGregor said. He said officials confirmed the plane would have to land without its nose gear but decided not to put flame-retardant foam on the runway.
"A foam blanket can make the runway more difficult and slippery to control the landing," MacGregor said.
The plane was able to land safely at about 6:28 a.m. on runway 14-Right, Cabanban said. She said sparks shot up from the metal nose of the plane making contact with the runway, but there was no fire.
"It was an excellent job by the pilot to land that plane," Cabanban said. "All of the passengers were able to deplane the aircraft via the stairs."
MacGregor said paramedics checked the passengers at the scene but no injuries were reported. They were loaded onto a bus and taxied to a terminal, he said. The scene was secured shortly before 7 a.m., he said.
Cabanban said the plane would remain on the runway at its resting point while American Airlines officials inspected the aircraft and investigated the incident. She had no further information on what went wrong with the plane's landing gear.
The runway will remain "inactive" while the investigation continues, she said, but only minimal delays were expected at the airport today as a result.
Tribune staff reporter Charles Sheehan and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Disabled jet makes safe landing at O’Hare
By Jason Meisner
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 20, 2006, 8:26 AM CDT
No injuries were reported this morning after a disabled American Airlines jet made a safe emergency landing at O'Hare International Airport.
The pilot of American Airlines Flight 1740, which originated from Los Angeles, notified the O'Hare control tower at about 6:15 a.m. that the plane had no working nose gear, Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Kristen Cabanban said.
There were 131 passengers and five Chicago-based crew members on board the plane, said John Hotard, a spokesman for American Airlines. Hotard said upon approach to O'Hare, the plane first flew by the tower for a visual inspection.
"There was a flyby in which they passed the tower, but the tower could not confirm whether the nose gear was down," Hotard said.
The Chicago Fire Department instituted a standby response calling five ambulances to the scene and surrounding the runway with emergency equipment, fire Chief Kevin MacGregor said. He said officials confirmed the plane would have to land without its nose gear but decided not to put flame-retardant foam on the runway.
"A foam blanket can make the runway more difficult and slippery to control the landing," MacGregor said.
The plane was able to land safely at about 6:28 a.m. on runway 14-Right, Cabanban said. She said sparks shot up from the metal nose of the plane making contact with the runway, but there was no fire.
"It was an excellent job by the pilot to land that plane," Cabanban said. "All of the passengers were able to deplane the aircraft via the stairs."
MacGregor said paramedics checked the passengers at the scene but no injuries were reported. They were loaded onto a bus and taxied to a terminal, he said. The scene was secured shortly before 7 a.m., he said.
Cabanban said the plane would remain on the runway at its resting point while American Airlines officials inspected the aircraft and investigated the incident. She had no further information on what went wrong with the plane's landing gear.
The runway will remain "inactive" while the investigation continues, she said, but only minimal delays were expected at the airport today as a result.
Tribune staff reporter Charles Sheehan and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The video of the landing is quite interesting and I hope you all get to see it. A puff of flame at touchdown of nose section of aircraft, but plane will likely fly again...below is a report on a similiar incident some 10 years ago.
regards
jon
=====report from 10 years ago=======
Date: October 28th, 1996
Type: MD82
Registration: -
Operator: American Airlines
Where: JFT International Airport, New York
Report No.: Not Available
Report Date: -
Pages: -
This is not an accident investigation report.
At about 22:31 EST, American Airlines flight 346, a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, N244AA, landed nose gear up at JFK International Airport, New York.
Visual meteorological conditions existed. There were 93 occupants; 1 passenger received serious injuries, and 2 passengers received minor injuries. The aircraft received minor damage. The departure point was Chicago, Illinois. The original destination was LaGuardia Airport, New York. The flight was operated under 14 CFR Part 121.
The flight was inbound to land at LGA on runway 31 when the flight crew received an unsafe nose gear indication. A low approach was made at LGA for ground personnel to visually determine the nose gear position, which they were unable to confirm as being down. The flight crew decided to divert to JFK where a landing was made on runway 31R and subsequently an emergency evacuation was performed. The injuries were incurred during the evacuation. The serious injury consisted of fractured bones of the ankle and foot.
Preliminary examination of the aircraft revealed the nose landing gear upper lock link, P/N 3914464-503, was fractured in two pieces. The linkage jammed against the shock strut structure, preventing extension of the strut. Metallurgical examination of the link to determine the failure mode is scheduled. NTSB Identification NYC97LA009
Aircraft is s/n 49256, l/n 1158, delivered to AA Sept 1984 with JT8D-217 engines, MTOW of 67,812 kgs / 149,000 lbs., configured in F14/Y125, and with a TTSN / TCSN as of Dec 1995 of 34,206 hrs / 19,743 ldg
regards
jon
=====report from 10 years ago=======
Date: October 28th, 1996
Type: MD82
Registration: -
Operator: American Airlines
Where: JFT International Airport, New York
Report No.: Not Available
Report Date: -
Pages: -
This is not an accident investigation report.
At about 22:31 EST, American Airlines flight 346, a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, N244AA, landed nose gear up at JFK International Airport, New York.
Visual meteorological conditions existed. There were 93 occupants; 1 passenger received serious injuries, and 2 passengers received minor injuries. The aircraft received minor damage. The departure point was Chicago, Illinois. The original destination was LaGuardia Airport, New York. The flight was operated under 14 CFR Part 121.
The flight was inbound to land at LGA on runway 31 when the flight crew received an unsafe nose gear indication. A low approach was made at LGA for ground personnel to visually determine the nose gear position, which they were unable to confirm as being down. The flight crew decided to divert to JFK where a landing was made on runway 31R and subsequently an emergency evacuation was performed. The injuries were incurred during the evacuation. The serious injury consisted of fractured bones of the ankle and foot.
Preliminary examination of the aircraft revealed the nose landing gear upper lock link, P/N 3914464-503, was fractured in two pieces. The linkage jammed against the shock strut structure, preventing extension of the strut. Metallurgical examination of the link to determine the failure mode is scheduled. NTSB Identification NYC97LA009
Aircraft is s/n 49256, l/n 1158, delivered to AA Sept 1984 with JT8D-217 engines, MTOW of 67,812 kgs / 149,000 lbs., configured in F14/Y125, and with a TTSN / TCSN as of Dec 1995 of 34,206 hrs / 19,743 ldg
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Age: 83
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-9 Nose gear stuck
Evening flight into Nashville in a DC9-31 late winter 1975. Nose gear wouldn't come down. Every procedure was carried out. We flew east of Nashville to try plan "B" (not found in any manual). The passengers were told that we were going to do a maneuver that would press them down in their seats, but to not be alarmed. We then made a "smooth" 3G pullup. Out came the nose gear with a wham. Later investigation confirmed our suspicion that the nosegear uplock simply had frozen with some ice. The ice of course had later melted, but the area was wet and very cold when we landed.
Experience is a great teacher. Don't ding an airplane if any other solution remains plausible. I am not potshotting the crew of AAL; my comment is just to always evaluate any possibility outside what the FAA and company manual dictate. That's what we're paid for......
Experience is a great teacher. Don't ding an airplane if any other solution remains plausible. I am not potshotting the crew of AAL; my comment is just to always evaluate any possibility outside what the FAA and company manual dictate. That's what we're paid for......
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Link to the video from Chicago's channel 2:
http://cbs2chicago.com/
and
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/[email protected]
http://cbs2chicago.com/
and
http://cbs2chicago.com/video/[email protected]
Last edited by jet_noseover; 21st Jun 2006 at 01:05.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EAL747...good move on your part...especially noted the "late winter" remark. You are right, pilots need to think and not just do checklists.
while we all know at altitude it is below freezing, when the freezing level is down to the deck, things don't thaw out .
today's wx at ORD approx time of incident:
METAR KORD 201053Z VRB04KT 10SM SCT250 18/14 A3003 RMK AO2 SLP166 T01780144
EAL, as you know, there are a couple of giant springs up in the nose gear compartment on the DC9 ( we called it the ROCKET). I was flying along one day and Kaboing! We landed and one of the springs was missing...may have fallen out when we put the gear down.
I wonder about the possibility of counterfit parts contributing to this? too early to know.
regards
jon
while we all know at altitude it is below freezing, when the freezing level is down to the deck, things don't thaw out .
today's wx at ORD approx time of incident:
METAR KORD 201053Z VRB04KT 10SM SCT250 18/14 A3003 RMK AO2 SLP166 T01780144
EAL, as you know, there are a couple of giant springs up in the nose gear compartment on the DC9 ( we called it the ROCKET). I was flying along one day and Kaboing! We landed and one of the springs was missing...may have fallen out when we put the gear down.
I wonder about the possibility of counterfit parts contributing to this? too early to know.
regards
jon
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire Chief decides?
The Fire Chief decided not to foam the runway?
Well well! I would say that if the Commander requests foam he should get it.
I had a runway foamed once (also for an MD type ) and waited gladly 35 minutes to get it. Later I took the boys in the Fire shop a barrel of beer so they had some foam of their own.
This slipperiness argument is wrong. There are studies over 10 years old showing this. The usual tenuous argument for not foaming is if there is no dedicated equipment, you might use up fire fighting foam that you will need later to put out the blaze that you wouldn't have had if you had foamed the runway.
I suggest the Fire Chief reads the reports. I'll see if I can find them.
FC.
Well well! I would say that if the Commander requests foam he should get it.
I had a runway foamed once (also for an MD type ) and waited gladly 35 minutes to get it. Later I took the boys in the Fire shop a barrel of beer so they had some foam of their own.
This slipperiness argument is wrong. There are studies over 10 years old showing this. The usual tenuous argument for not foaming is if there is no dedicated equipment, you might use up fire fighting foam that you will need later to put out the blaze that you wouldn't have had if you had foamed the runway.
I suggest the Fire Chief reads the reports. I'll see if I can find them.
FC.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airclues
yes, that was my point. eal 747 indicated a winter event where the temps might have been freezing all the way to the ground.
today's event was clearly well above freezing at 18 c. my speculation is a bad part, faulty mx, or even an odd strike of something during takeoff.
as to foaming the runway, I tend to agree with the chap who foamed for another md80 incident. kudos also for buying beer for the brigade boys.
FWIW, at least in the USA, some 20 years ago foaming became something of the past for civilians, 15 years ago for military. And yes, if you foamed today, you would have to wait for the fire engines (fire trucks, equipment) to make sufficient foam for the post crash use...and while waiting, the foam on the runway would dissapate a bit...15 minutes seems the max useful time of foam. I too agree that directional control would not have suffered had there been foam on the runway.
My personal feeling is tht foaming the runway was popular with SAC to avoid problems with nukes. ;-)
Having covered things like this, I recall the press release for a CAL express embraer at houston with a gear problem. Press release said RUNWAYS WAS FOAMED> Pictures indicated otherwise. A call to a knowlegable person proved that the fire crew had HOSED off the runway where the tire (tyre) had burst (to remove debris, to allow continued runway ops)...the plane landed on different runway.
yes, that was my point. eal 747 indicated a winter event where the temps might have been freezing all the way to the ground.
today's event was clearly well above freezing at 18 c. my speculation is a bad part, faulty mx, or even an odd strike of something during takeoff.
as to foaming the runway, I tend to agree with the chap who foamed for another md80 incident. kudos also for buying beer for the brigade boys.
FWIW, at least in the USA, some 20 years ago foaming became something of the past for civilians, 15 years ago for military. And yes, if you foamed today, you would have to wait for the fire engines (fire trucks, equipment) to make sufficient foam for the post crash use...and while waiting, the foam on the runway would dissapate a bit...15 minutes seems the max useful time of foam. I too agree that directional control would not have suffered had there been foam on the runway.
My personal feeling is tht foaming the runway was popular with SAC to avoid problems with nukes. ;-)
Having covered things like this, I recall the press release for a CAL express embraer at houston with a gear problem. Press release said RUNWAYS WAS FOAMED> Pictures indicated otherwise. A call to a knowlegable person proved that the fire crew had HOSED off the runway where the tire (tyre) had burst (to remove debris, to allow continued runway ops)...the plane landed on different runway.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Landing
As a non pilot it seems that he managed to hold the nose off the ground for ages, until he was down to a very low speed. This must have been beneficial in terms of risk and damage. There is plenty of video about of similar instances but subjectively this guy/gal seems to have been able to hold the nose gear (or nose in this case!!!) off the tarmac for longest. Does this indicate a superior piece of flying?? I guess it does....do many of you pilots practice this type of event in the sim?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It used to be military practice (assuming plenty of surplus runway) to hold the nose off for "aerodynamic braking" - reduces brake energy and maybe tire wear as well.
25-30 years ago after a few runway overruns by commercial pilots, Boeing & McD-D discouraged this for airline ops. Haven't heard anything lately, but the risk of overrun through misjudgement does seem to outweigh the brake wear benefit.
PS - Keeping the nose up is a standard practice for soft-field landing in light aircraft. And if you're buying your own tires & brakes, you can effect some real economy here!
25-30 years ago after a few runway overruns by commercial pilots, Boeing & McD-D discouraged this for airline ops. Haven't heard anything lately, but the risk of overrun through misjudgement does seem to outweigh the brake wear benefit.
PS - Keeping the nose up is a standard practice for soft-field landing in light aircraft. And if you're buying your own tires & brakes, you can effect some real economy here!
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main Gear
I recall a BA (BEA?) Viscount, or Vanguard, who came into LHR many moons ago with one side main gear inop.
He managed to hold the wing up long enough that there was minimal damage to the a/c, ended up with only part of the a/c off the runway, and the pax were deplaned to a safe distance. As the Flight Deck crew emerged from the a/c, the pax spontaneoulsly broke out with a round of applause.
Superb flying . Of couse, in these days the company would have been inundated with "emotional damage" compensation claims 
He managed to hold the wing up long enough that there was minimal damage to the a/c, ended up with only part of the a/c off the runway, and the pax were deplaned to a safe distance. As the Flight Deck crew emerged from the a/c, the pax spontaneoulsly broke out with a round of applause.
Superb flying
. Of couse, in these days the company would have been inundated with "emotional damage" compensation claims
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temperature at altitude is waaaaaaaaaaay below freezing. The plane originated in LAX. Several hours at cruise with temperatures that should have been around -45 to -50 C. *IF* ice formed it's a function of how long the a/c was in above freezing temperatures to allow any ice to melt. Freezing issues would be more likely if they taken off from a wet airport, especially if slush is involved.
S-80's have had nose gear retraction/extension issues in the past.
Holding the nose off? To a certain extent it is always held off on landing. Sometimes guys don't lower it slow enough and it 'bangs' down. Only looked at the video one time but it appears to have happened slightly in this event. Granted the pitch attitude when the nose would touchdown was a complete unknown to the crew. And crews do use 'aero braking' on some a/c(not S-80's) to a limited extent but nothing like fighter a/c do(which is cool looking).
Tail authority is still available after touchdown. It would depend upon C.G. and a/c weight but it can be fairly slow(below 100 kts).
"Smooth 3G manuever"??? Hopefully you wrote the a/c up for an 'over G' since I've yet to see a transport category jet that's certified to 3 G's.
"G" the a/c to try to lower the gear was removed from manuals. It was there in the 1980/90's. Why has it removed? How many G's should the pilot pull? How's he know how many he's pulling? No G meter(see previous paragraph). Relative risk analysis apparently thought gear up was safer than trying pull G's and possible damage the a/c even more with an 'over G'. Frequently the a/c it raised, gear lowered, and towed to the mx hangar to fly again within days.
There are only two easy to know G's in aviation. One G(99+% of ops), and two G's (60 degree level bank). Almost everything else(30, 45 bank G's are published), absent a G meter, is just a guess.
S-80's have had nose gear retraction/extension issues in the past.
Holding the nose off? To a certain extent it is always held off on landing. Sometimes guys don't lower it slow enough and it 'bangs' down. Only looked at the video one time but it appears to have happened slightly in this event. Granted the pitch attitude when the nose would touchdown was a complete unknown to the crew. And crews do use 'aero braking' on some a/c(not S-80's) to a limited extent but nothing like fighter a/c do(which is cool looking).
Tail authority is still available after touchdown. It would depend upon C.G. and a/c weight but it can be fairly slow(below 100 kts).
"Smooth 3G manuever"??? Hopefully you wrote the a/c up for an 'over G' since I've yet to see a transport category jet that's certified to 3 G's.
"G" the a/c to try to lower the gear was removed from manuals. It was there in the 1980/90's. Why has it removed? How many G's should the pilot pull? How's he know how many he's pulling? No G meter(see previous paragraph). Relative risk analysis apparently thought gear up was safer than trying pull G's and possible damage the a/c even more with an 'over G'. Frequently the a/c it raised, gear lowered, and towed to the mx hangar to fly again within days.
There are only two easy to know G's in aviation. One G(99+% of ops), and two G's (60 degree level bank). Almost everything else(30, 45 bank G's are published), absent a G meter, is just a guess.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by misd-agin
There are only two easy to know G's in aviation. One G(99+% of ops), and two G's (60 degree level bank). Almost everything else(30, 45 bank G's are published), absent a G meter, is just a guess.
So many planes have had failed nosegear extensions and I've yet to see one go bad (that is a good thing). It is an emergency that is handled just like a normal landing, so I guess it is pretty much a non event. The only thing I see different is that you try and lower the nose down gently before the tail looses effectiveness.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by ExSimGuy
I recall a BA (BEA?) Viscount, or Vanguard, who came into LHR many moons ago with one side main gear inop.
He managed to hold the wing up long enough that there was minimal damage to the a/c, ended up with only part of the a/c off the runway, and the pax were deplaned to a safe distance. As the Flight Deck crew emerged from the a/c, the pax spontaneoulsly broke out with a round of applause.
Superb flying . Of couse, in these days the company would have been inundated with "emotional damage" compensation claims
He managed to hold the wing up long enough that there was minimal damage to the a/c, ended up with only part of the a/c off the runway, and the pax were deplaned to a safe distance. As the Flight Deck crew emerged from the a/c, the pax spontaneoulsly broke out with a round of applause.
Superb flying
. Of couse, in these days the company would have been inundated with "emotional damage" compensation claims
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but last time I checked "maneuvering" speeds are more a small airplane kind of thing. while usually preventing "bending" by stalling first, large planes rarely use maneuvering speed...indeed my 737 manual doesn't even publish it.
please remember that rough air penetration speed IS NOT the same as maneuvering speed. DP Davies' book, "handling the big jets" goes into some detail about starting around page 220 (third edition).
While a maneuvering speed can be calculated, pilots of transport planes often don't have access to this(glass cockpit planes might have a display of this, but chances are that a g meter is somewhere in the loop of this?). Small planes have a nice placcard or other markings telling what maneuvering speed is for max weight.
And yes, a 60 degree bank, properly coordinated maintaing altitude turn should give you 2 gs (positive)
please remember that rough air penetration speed IS NOT the same as maneuvering speed. DP Davies' book, "handling the big jets" goes into some detail about starting around page 220 (third edition).
While a maneuvering speed can be calculated, pilots of transport planes often don't have access to this(glass cockpit planes might have a display of this, but chances are that a g meter is somewhere in the loop of this?). Small planes have a nice placcard or other markings telling what maneuvering speed is for max weight.
And yes, a 60 degree bank, properly coordinated maintaing altitude turn should give you 2 gs (positive)
Last edited by jondc9; 21st Jun 2006 at 13:34.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: World
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by barit1
It used to be military practice (assuming plenty of surplus runway) to hold the nose off for "aerodynamic braking" - reduces brake energy and maybe tire wear as well.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi justanotherwindscreen:
I flew the nine but never the -80. in the 9 we could deploy thrust reversers inflight ( not legally of course!!!!) is there any logic or interlocks to prevent that in the super 80? also, I read somewhere that some planes had a ground sensing mechanism on the nose strut to make sure the nose wheel was on the ground prior to thrust reverser deployment? do you know if AA had it that way?
j
I flew the nine but never the -80. in the 9 we could deploy thrust reversers inflight ( not legally of course!!!!) is there any logic or interlocks to prevent that in the super 80? also, I read somewhere that some planes had a ground sensing mechanism on the nose strut to make sure the nose wheel was on the ground prior to thrust reverser deployment? do you know if AA had it that way?
j