LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: kea001 on March 09, 2009, 06:18:42 PM
-
Reported Engine Failure
An American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-82, flight AA-311 from Austin,TX to Los Angeles,CA (USA) with 123 passengers and 5 crew, had to return to Austin shortly after takeoff after an engine failed with a loud bang. The airplane landed safely 9 minutes after takeoff.
from Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=41639f29&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=41639f29&opt=1)
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL311 (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL311)
###
American Airlines jet makes emergency landing in Austin
Monday, March 9, 2009, 12:16 PM
Nicholas Di Benedetto, 28, was traveling home to San Jose with his girlfriend, Dee Summerscales, after visiting family in Austin. He was sitting next to the engine and said it was making a funny noise before takeoff. “It sounded like the little engine that could,” he said.He said shortly after takeoff he heard a loud boom, the floorboard shook and the plane dropped. “It was a bumpy landing,” he said. “It felt like being on military plane rather than a regular plane.
from Austin American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/03/09/american_airlines_jet_makes_em.html (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/03/09/american_airlines_jet_makes_em.html)
-
Compressor stall??
Where's simcoe when we need him?? :-D
-
Did you catch the F/O's response when he was handed over to tower?
That famous expression, 's**t'.
-
Did you catch the F/O's response when he was handed over to tower?
That famous expression, 's**t'.
I'm half hoping someone in Austin puts it on their local news and forgets to edit it. :lol:
-
"28 35, sh*t." At the 3:40 mark.
He asked again for the tower freq just prior to that. Guess he had his hands full! :-)
-
Great Clip. Yea sounds like the FO was a little busy.
-
"28 35, sh*t." At the 3:40 mark.
He asked again for the tower freq just prior to that. Guess he had his hands full! :-)
Heh heh, I don't think he had his hands full too bad. He just sounded flustered about something.
Interesting reading the news story. As usual, the media blows it way out of proportion. MD-80 ENGINE BLOWS UP ON TAKEOFF!!!
The crew didn't even know what it was. There was no engine failure. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been guessing what it was if the engine had shut down.
-
Yea...I noted that too...at the 2:45 mark he says it may have been a tire... :?
If it was a compressor stall, they should have seen that on their engine instruments...
They shut one of the engines down correct?
-
American MD83 at New York on Mar 11th 2009, uncontained engine failure
For a minute I thought it might be the same plane.
"American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-83, registration N971TW performing
flight AA-309
from New York La Guardia,NY to Chicago O'Hare,IL"
"The FAA reported, that the engine failure was uncontained, debris off the engine fell on building 25-99 123rd Street in New York City's district Jamaica, Queens near College Point Boulevard. The largest section of the debris is said to be 4 feet (approx. 1 meter). Debris also feel onto a car and damaged it. The fuselage of the airplane has been pierced by the shrapnel released by the engine as well."
http://avherald.com/h?article=41650f96&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=41650f96&opt=1)
I checked for audio of the landing and couldn't find anything of interest.
###
If you are superstitious, you can track AA-310 here:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL310 (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL310)
If you think there is a pattern here,
AA311 on March 9,
AA309 on March 11, then probably
AA307 on March 13 (Friday the 13th)
you are out of luck. AA-307 looks to be a seasonal flight that stopped flying end of January,
-
[ “It was a bumpy landing,” he said. “It felt like being on military plane rather than a regular plane.
huh? :?
-
Compressor stall??
compressor stalls dont cause uncontained engine failures.
-
Compressor stall??
compressor stalls dont cause uncontained engine failures.
Sorry for the confusion but there are two incidents listed here.
The first one, flight AA-311, is the one joeyb747 is referring to.
The second one, flight AA-309, is the uncontained engine failure.
-
Sorry for the confusion but there are two incidents listed here.
The first one, flight AA-311, is the one joeyb747 is referring to.
The second one, flight AA-309, is the uncontained engine failure.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry, Joey.
-
Compressor stall??
compressor stalls dont cause uncontained engine failures.
Sorry for the confusion but there are two incidents listed here.
The first one, flight AA-311, is the one joeyb747 is referring to.
The second one, flight AA-309, is the uncontained engine failure.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry, Joey.
No worries! 8-)
That was a joke. :lol:
Remember simcoe? The guy with the theory that Cactus 1549 didn't hit birds? He was stuck on the Compressor stalls the airplane had previously.
Compressor stalls do cause loud bangs thou. I think the one in Austin was a contained failure. the one in New York was uncontained.
-
The second one, flight AA-309, is the uncontained engine failure.
Just to be a stick in the mud, AA-309 was not an uncontained engine failure. The engine parts exited the tail pipe. Contrary to the media reports, nothing entered the fuselage. The engine casing was not compromised therefore the classification for this is "contained".
-
Thank you for the clarification, iskyfly. However, the distinction might be lost on, say, Mr. Archie Bunker from Queens as he walks into Kelsey's Bar with a piece of metal sticking out of the crown of his head. :evil:
###
"Mr. Bellini’s brothers, Tom and Rick, patrolled the building’s roof on Wednesday, pointing out the heavy pieces of metal with jagged edges that had stuck into the tar surface like shark teeth. Tom Bellini said they gave officials some 200 pieces. Investigators, meanwhile, milled around the parking lot, painting small circles around spots in the asphalt where other pieces fell.
The metal fragments all came out the back of the engine, and none went through the cowling, or engine cover. No fragments hit the fuselage, officials said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/nyregion/12plane.html?em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/nyregion/12plane.html?em)
-
Reguarding AAL 309:
So would these parts be from the burner section? It's not a fan disc failure, witch was my first thought from what they were reporting. Has anyone identified these parts? Just curious...
The Austin Mad Dog didn't lose any parts, correct?
-
For those of you who have never seen or heard a compressor stall, here is a couple of Youtube vids.
On this Swissair A330, you will see the flash out of the exhaust, then hear the bangs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D5AqAxE330&feature=PlayList&p=D8E0D3AFA6E2655B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3
This one is a B757 that ingests a small bird, resulting in several compressor stalls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ya5WEFpsVc
-
Reguarding AAL 309:
So would these parts be from the burner section? It's not a fan disc failure, witch was my first thought from what they were reporting. Has anyone identified these parts? Just curious...
Low pressure turbine blades.
Something like this;
http://machinedesign.com/article/green-technology-jets-gear-up-to-fly-greener-0619
-
Reguarding AAL 309:
So would these parts be from the burner section? It's not a fan disc failure, witch was my first thought from what they were reporting. Has anyone identified these parts? Just curious...
Low pressure turbine blades.
Something like this;
http://machinedesign.com/article/green-technology-jets-gear-up-to-fly-greener-0619
Yea...I thought about that right after I posted...
I was just about to dig up a diagram of the JT8D, but you beat me to it! 8-)
The aft Low Pressure Turbine Section makes alot of sense.
-
RE: AA309
Maintenance Was Overdue on Jet Engine
By ANDY PASZTOR
"An American Airlines jet that suffered an engine failure and made an emergency landing Wednesday morning at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport had a history of engine problems and hadn't received maintenance checks slated to occur days before the incident, according to people familiar with the details."
cont'd here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682601646404111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
RE: AA-311
"Engineers determined a turbine blade failure, engine #2 needs to be replaced."
http://avherald.com/h?article=41639f29&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=41639f29&opt=1)
-
So both airplanes suffered the same issue?? Low Pressure Turbine Blade Failure!! :-o
Hmmmmmm...
So that makes three American Airlines Aircraft that have had engine issues in less then a month. I'd say somebody needs to take a look at their maintenance department!
From report on the first link:
"The emergency landing was the second time in less than a month that an American jet suffered a sudden engine failure shortly after takeoff. On Feb. 15, minutes after an American Boeing 757 left Southern California's John Wayne Airport bound for Chicago, the pilots reported serious problems with one of their two engines."
We discussed this incident in another thread...
-
I'd be hesitant to say that the two were related. The only things they have in common were they were in the same country, and on the same airline. 2 different aircraft types flying 2 different engine types, having engine overhauls in completely different facilities.
-
AA311 and AA309 were both MD-80's with the same engines if I'm not mistaken.
-
Oh, nevermind. I was thinking the 757 out in Cali from the other thread. My mistake.
But yes, MD-80 series is junk!
-
Oh, nevermind. I was thinking the 757 out in Cali from the other thread. My mistake.
But yes, MD-80 series is junk!
Copy that on the Mad Dogs!
Yea, I was only linking the two MD-80's with the B757 as all being American Airlines equipment. :wink:
-
But yes, MD-80 series is junk!
Even God thinks so.....
American MD82 near Houston on Mar 13th 2009, lightning strike, hole in the fuselage
"The crew reported a hole in the left side of the fuselage near the door indicating they didn't know, whether the structural integrity of the airplane had been compromised, declared emergency.."
Aviation Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=416787dc&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=416787dc&opt=1)
Friday the 13th...see I told you.. :evil:
-
WOW!! :-o
March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!
Toss in the B757 from last month...not a great start to the year! I don't think I'll be flying American untill there luck changes!
-
March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!
Just think back to last year when AA and DL had to ground their fleets due to AD compliance issues.
Funny story:
Was taxiing out of ORD and there was quite a line for departure. The view was interesting with multitudes of MD80s parked at the AA hangar. This day, C90 was being plagued with radar problems, and departures would be frequently halted for a few mins while things were sorted out. Pilots in line were understanding of the problem, but were starting to get annoyed by the occasional departure stops.
Somebody jumped on the freq and asked "You still having problems with your wonderful radar?"
Without missing a beat, tower came back with "You're not flying an MD80 are you? Oh wait, that's a no."
-
March of 2009 has not been kind to the American Airlines MD-80 fleet! Thats three birds in one month!
Just think back to last year when AA and DL had to ground their fleets due to AD compliance issues.
It was the electrical system on the MD-80's if I'm not mistaken...
And your story is pretty amusing! :-D
-
Indonesia's Flying Circus
"To say Indonesia's air travel industry has had a bad month is an understatement of astonishing proportions. On March 10, the ministry of transportation grounded all of the country's ageing McDonnell Douglas MD-90 passenger jets after a Lion Air flight skidded off the runway in a driving rainstorm at Jakarta's Sukarno-Hatta Airport."
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1765&Itemid=189&limit=1&limitstart=0 (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1765&Itemid=189&limit=1&limitstart=0)
-
They also refer to another MD-90 that had nose gear issues...
From report:
"Another ageing Lion Air MD-90 was unable to lower its nose gear at Batam's Hang Nadim Airport and skidded in on its nose."
"...the problem was that one of the levers for the wheel hatch was broken, which caused the plane's forward landing gear to stick."
Amazing...
-
AAL Flight 309 Engine Failure May Have Been Caused By Runway Debris
American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith told Newsday company engineers inspecting the problem Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine observed damage “consistent” with engine failures caused by ingestion of foreign objects in similar incidents.
"To some trained eyes, it sure looked that way," Smith said.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d)
-
You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
-
AAL Flight 309 Engine Failure May Have Been Caused By Runway Debris
American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith told Newsday company engineers inspecting the problem Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine observed damage “consistent” with engine failures caused by ingestion of foreign objects in similar incidents.
"To some trained eyes, it sure looked that way," Smith said.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=dfa3b028-bd49-44ef-89c7-2e50ce99a19d)
I'm not totally convinced on that...If an engine ingests a piece of F.O.D., the result is usually instantaneous. Its like if you throw a penny into a window fan. Or if not, they would have noticed something wrong on the main engine gauges.
Not saying that the report is false, I just think the engine would have failed on the takeoff roll, not the climb-out.
Have they identified where exactly these parts came from? I believe we were speculating it was the Aft Low Pressure Turbine Blade...
-
For something to take out the aft low pressure turbine blade, I find it hard to believe that it is FOD. That means it made its way through the fan, through the compressor and stator vanes, through the burner can, through the high pressure turbines, and all the way to the very last low pressure turbine. Simcoe might say it happened this way, but I highly doubt it. If it were FOD, it would more likely have come in through the back of the engine, which is also very unlikely.
-
For something to take out the aft low pressure turbine blade, I find it hard to believe that it is FOD. That means it made its way through the fan, through the compressor and stator vanes, through the burner can, through the high pressure turbines, and all the way to the very last low pressure turbine. Simcoe might say it happened this way, but I highly doubt it. If it were FOD, it would more likely have come in through the back of the engine, which is also very unlikely.
That's what I'm saying! I find it more possible that it was just a part failure. That kind of thing happens...anyone remember United 232 Heavy??
-
You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
Not quite.
-
You can't assume that the copilot was working the radio. The normal procedure for an abnormal situation is to hand the flying off to the copilot. That way the captrain can concentrate on managing the situation. The captain would then take the aircraft on final for the landing.
Not quite.
I agree with iflysky...but I was waiting for a pilot to back up my thinking. :-D
Wouldn't either pilot be fully qualified to handle the airplane in an engine out situation?
-
I agree with iflysky...but I was waiting for a pilot to back up my thinking. :-D
Wouldn't either pilot be fully qualified to handle the airplane in an engine out situation?
I was waiting for Buzzard to back up his statement with some sort of fact. For all I know, that is American's way of handling QRH procedures, for the F/O to become flying pilot while the Captain runs the QRH. That seems backwards to me, and also unnecessary as both pilots are equally trained in the aircraft. :?
-
It is the US way. It was instituted after the crash of an Eastern L-1011 in the everglades years ago. In that accident no one was flying the airplane, they were all working on the problem - A burned out landing gear bulb. Normally in the US we transfer positive control to the F/O. The idea is that its understood we can both fly the aircraft. The captain is tasked with managing the situation. Its easier to get the big picture as well as come up with a good game plan
-
That does seem backwards to me too...if I was a Captain and something happened to my airplane, I think I'd want to take over flying, and let the F/O figure out what happened! :wink:
But, I am not... :cry:
Nor am I versed in all the rules of flying.
-
It is the US way. It was instituted after the crash of an Eastern L-1011 in the everglades years ago. In that accident no one was flying the airplane, they were all working on the problem - A burned out landing gear bulb. Normally in the US we transfer positive control to the F/O. The idea is that its understood we can both fly the aircraft. The captain is tasked with managing the situation. Its easier to get the big picture as well as come up with a good game plan
Okay, so now I'm really confused here. What you say "It is the US way" are you referring to USAirways?
-
I don't know about carriers outside the USA. But that is the common practice for USA majors. Usually if an engine fails early down low, if the captain was flying he would hold onto the controls through the clean up. Then once stable and climbing transfer positive control to the right seater.
-
I don't know about carriers outside the USA. But that is the common practice for USA majors. Usually if an engine fails early down low, if the captain was flying he would hold onto the controls through the clean up. Then once stable and climbing transfer positive control to the right seater.
I'm not sure where you got your facts, but this is most definitely incorrect. After having been at a national and regional airline for 5 1/2 years, I can assure you this is not some nationwide airline procedure. I have many contacts at various airlines around the country, and none are familiar with what you describe.
Normal CRM procedure has one pilot flying the aircraft while the other is on the radios, checklists, etc. In the event of a malfunction, it is standard to transfer control of the radio to the pilot flying while the pilot monitoring runs QRH procedures, communicates with flight attendants and passengers, talks to maintenance, etc.
The example of US1549 with the captain taking control of the airplane and radio when the f/o was flying is not a procedure, it was the PIC taking command of a very strickened aircraft.
-
I spoke with my Captain friend over at NWA. He said at NWA it depends on the situation. In the event of having to shut down an engine, the Captain would transfer flying duties to the F/O, and the Captain runs the QRH. He said, no offense to any F/Os in the house, it is to make sure the correct powerplant is shut down, and that the procedures are handled correctly. After the aircraft is stable, the Captain has his choice if he wants to take the airplane over, or if he has confidence in the F/O and his ability to handle the airplane in an emergency situation.
Now a situation like 1549, where the aircraft lost all thrust capabilities, the Captain would take over flying the airplane 100%.
Like I said, it depends on the situation. Utilize CRM to its fullest potential.
This is what he told me, just thought I'd add that to the mix.
-
Thats an interesting way to do it.
At my company, when it comes to shutting down an engine, or switching off a generator, or anything else that significantly effects the operation of the aircraft and can be confused with another switch, both pilots participate in the QRH.
For example, let's say you get a left engine fire indication. The pilot flying assumes control of the radio and asks for the "Immediate Action Items" for a left engine fire. The non-flying pilot then pulls out the QRH and starts reading the procedure (all QRH, and any checklist, procedures must be read aloud for CVR confirmation).
The non-flying pilot will read "Left engine thrust lever - confirm and idle" and place his hand on the left thrust lever and keep it there without doing or saying anything. The pilot flying will then look at the EICAS once again to confirm that it is indeed the LEFT engine that is on fire, then look at the non-flying pilot's hand to make sure it is indeed on the LEFT thrust lever. If it is, the pilot flying will say "Left engine thrust lever confirmed, idle." At that point, the non-flying pilot moves the thrust lever to idle and both pilots monitor the aircraft to make sure the bad engine is indeed the one that has been commanded to idle.
This banter back and forth between the pilots then continues on to shut the engine off, turn the fuel pump off, push the fire push button, and discharge the fire bottles. It is all done very slowly and deliberately to make sure no mistakes are made.
That's just the way my company does it. Many other airlines use a very similar approach to it, apparently NWA doesn't.
-
At my company, when it comes to shutting down an engine, or switching off a generator, or anything else that significantly effects the operation of the aircraft and can be confused with another switch, both pilots participate in the QRH.
Absolutely. CRM plays a huge part in any decision making on a flight deck. I hope you don't think I meant at NWA the Captain is God, and his word is final...
-
I was just making the point that you can't assume the copilot is working the radio. This is the procedure we have always used:
EMERGENCY ABNORMAL CHECKLIST
The Captain must take action to establish and maintain airplane
control while determining a course of action. If the First Officer is
flying, taking over control of the airplane may be required. Conversely, delegating
the physical flying of the airplane to the First Officer may enhance the Captain's
problem-solving processes and add to his command of the situationUpon making this decision and once airplane control has been established, the
Captain will determine the nature of the problem and call for the appropriate
checklist.
-
In watching the congressional hearing from flight 1549 the Captain justified his reasons for taking over the aircraft...Basically along the lines of - I have more experience in the A320 so I flew the plane, and my F/O more recently had to certify for the A320 so he learned the emergency procedures more recently as well. therefore he is better suited to work the checklist since it is fresh with him.
obviously not a quote...but it supports your guys' argument that it depends on the situation, since he made no mention of any "standard procedure"