Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Dynasty was going to go off the runway so it went around?

I thnik that's it.

747 touch and go is a pretty humbling thing to watch  :-o

Listener Forum / Guam Frequency Outages
« Last post by ryanb977 on Today at 04:43:00 PM »

I was wondering if the ZUA frequencies are ever going to come back up. Theyve been down for like 700 days now.

Thanks LiveATC for the services!
See for a nice writeup and METAR.

It's mostly speculation what exactly happened until a report is released, but by all means lets speculate:

The wording "last minute deviation" may indicate they were doing an autoland and the localizer was disturbed by the departing plane or something else.

Maybe they decided to go-around shortly before touchdown but of course you need to put in a bit of energy and they still touched down and that was with the left main gear into the grass area to the left side. (because they were not lined up correctly)
They could have bounced on landing, decided to go-around and then during the go-around deviated to the left.
That still fits with the location of the the runway excursion right at the end of the touchdown zone.

10C where they would normally land was closed at the time but i'm not sure why. (was a planned closure didn't find any go-arounds due to sudden closure)
Maybe a runway inspection or too much rain?
Dynasty was going to go off the runway so it went around?

I thnik that's it. Maybe they were headed to the left side of the runway or had a gust on the flare that moved them sideways and went around.

I'll take a look at the METAR and see how the weather was at that time.
I'm confused. :(

Dynasty was going to go off the runway so it went around?
So at 40 seconds in this clip and at 28:20 in the original file (14:48:20 UTC // 09:48 local time) you can hear another pilot say "Going off the runway".
At 1 minute (28:49 in the original file) in the file you can hear "Dynasty 5148 we are going around due to last minute deviation on the runway".

The runway was immediately closed for inspection, there seemed to be debris on the runway.

From this and the NOTAMS i assume this was an runway excursion.

ORD AD AP WDI FOR RWY 10L OUT OF SERVICE 1806211547-1807262300 (WDI = Wind Direction Indicator // wind sock)

NOTAMS for the approach lighting system and ILS have since been removed so i would assume they were inspected and the only damage was to the wind sock and the grass area to the left of the runway.

They landed safely after the go-around and the customary phone number was interchanged but i didn't include that in my clip.

Flight track:

(original file
Hi Shane,
    If you go to set up your other three scanners, you might want to keep in mind that I am soon going to have another site setup near CYHZ (I have the feed from there now which has the ATC frequencies on a scanning scanner, as well as the CYAW feed). I am planning to have eight additional feeds from there. They will all be scanner-based to keep reception levels & signal/noise ratios up when picking up distant aircraft.

The ones I am putting up that you might want to consider are:

(1) 119.200 with a couple of minor support frequencies 118.700 (for VFR) and 128.550 (seldom used).
(2) 135.300 Moncton PAL low (Cape Breton Sector) -> seems to be cross-coupled across all Moncton low-level sectors quite frequently , especially at night.
(3) 133.950 Moncton Pal high. I'll throw the cross-coupled frequencies on there too (125.25, 133.70, 133.30, 132.75) for times that they are de-coupled.

This second site is less than 600m from the remote transmitter site for CYHZ so reception is a piece of cake. I'm going to put an SDR on ATIS as well as it is broadcast from that same site.

If you want to private message me go ahead....I want to discuss PiAware / FlightFeeder with you....



Listener Forum / klax clearance/ delivery
« Last post by Chananya Freedman on June 21, 2018, 03:15:07 PM »
Hello. Are there any plans to add LAX clearance delivery at some point?
Feed Outage/Status Reports / KTLH back up
« Last post by kd4moj on June 21, 2018, 01:50:13 PM »
Apologies for not posting that it was down. Had a lightning strike that took out equipment. Back on-line as of last night, 6/20/2018.


Just saw this at FlightGlobal, via FlightAware:

No root cause found in 2015 GE90 failure in Las Vegas
GE Aviation was unable to identify the cause of a disk web crack that caused a GE90-powered British Airways 777-200 to fail during a takeoff roll on a Las Vegas airport runway nearly three years ago, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says.

Although the NTSB’s 33-month investigation did not identify a root cause for the engine failure, the board’s investigators raised questions about the checklist and steps taken by the crew that may have delayed the evacuation and worsened the fire on the runway.

One crew member suffered a serious injury and 19 passengers reported minor injuries during the 9 September 2015 incident, which involved British Airways flight 66 from Las Vegas to London.

The disk web stage 8-10 inside the high pressure compressor exploded as the aircraft accelerated to take-off. The crew commanded a rejected takeoff procedure within 2s of the engine failure, causing the aircraft to slow to a stop from 77kt within 13s.

An extensive metallurgical examination of the failed component revealed evidence of a sustained-peak low-cycle fatigue crack in the stage 8-10 disk web, but could not determine a root cause, the NTSB says.

The first signs of the crack should have been detectable during a maintenance check in 2008, but there was no requirement to inspect the disk web, the NTSB says. GE now has procedures to check for disk web cracks during routine maintenance, the agency adds.

Boeing told the NTSB that an estimated 436l (97gal) of jet fuel spilled onto the runway at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport. The spill occurred during the 28s between the engine failure and the moment that the crew shut off the fuel valve to the engine, the NTSB says.

The captain called for the engine fire checklist twice before starting the procedure, according to the NTSB’s review of the cockpit voice recorder. About 13s elapsed between the captain’s second call for the checklist and the closure of the fuel valve.

“British Airways' engine fire checklist, which was based on the Boeing 777 engine fire checklist, did not differentiate between an engine fire occurring on the ground or during flight,” the NTSB says.

“The third step of the checklist instructed the flight crew to cut off the fuel control switch on the affected side to shut down that engine,” the agency adds. “However, for an engine fire on the ground, the checklist did not include a step to shut down the unaffected engine or indicate that some steps did not apply.”

IIRC, the clip of this is still available in this forum.

It's interesting to note that there wasn't anything on the engine fire checklist for an engine fire that occurs on the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a change for that at every airline, as that wouldn't necessarily fall under grounds for an AD to be issued.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10