Another Emergency Landing

[robbedagain]

i thought the flie deck crew has final say about the landing of an aircraft with any kind of trouble? also wouldnt the FAA be involved in invesigating the incident

 

[Dog Wonder]

The FAA has seen too much corporste stumbling already.

Yes they are interested in this fiasco.

 

[N924PS]

Ahem.

The flight deck crew did not do "due diligence". They FU, big time. They endangered every person on board.

The nut cutter was the company (Tempe) did not want to fly a qualified mechanic into Louisville to inspect the aircraft, so they talked an apparently novice flight deck crew into holding so as to land below max landing weight.

This is the reason we talk about experience. No east crew would have agreed with such a pathetic course of action. Most, including me, would have landed immediately. Some might have considered other alternatives. All would have been safer than what actually happened.

My friend at a local GADO thinks the flight deck crew are in a bunch of trouble.

But that seems to comport with A&W corporate policy, punish the employees who cannot fight back. Cretins.

Killing Tempe might be the best thing we could do for this world.

The GADO's have been gone for years now. I think you mean FSDO. It's all under one roof, just like Part 91 and Part 121. Kapiche?

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

He probably had Guido on his mind, and it just slipped out as Gado.

 

[MarkMyWords]

The nut cutter was the company (Tempe) did not want to fly a qualified mechanic into Louisville to inspect the aircraft, so they talked an apparently novice flight deck crew into holding so as to land below max landing weight.

Snake, um, I mean Snark -

You have absolutely no clue about what happened. Why don't you save the finger pointing and blame game tactics. Maint Control would NEVER jeopardize the safety of customers and crew to save a buck (or save sending a mechanic to do an inspection).

Do you have information on who the Captain consulted? Who actually made what decisions? Have you specifically spoken with this Crew? Dispatcher? MOC Duty Manager? I have. And your hatred for this company and your west counterparts is impairing your judgement.

Until you actually have facts to back up your point of view, maybe it is a better idea to keep your mouth shut!

PS (your idea of diverting to CLT or PIT shows your regional mentality....this was a wast airplane and west crew....diverting to PIT or CLT would have done what for the customers? There were no flights headed west and if you haven't noticed....we are a tad short crews this month.)

All involved did an exceptional job. Crew, ground staff, hotels, shuttle services, MOC, SOC, Dispatch, Customer Relations, etc.

 

[oldcrow]

All involved did an exceptional job. Crew, ground staff, hotels, shuttle services, MOC, SOC, Dispatch, Customer Relations, etc.

All I know about this incident is what has been conveyed on this thread. IF(thats a big IF) the facts are correct as stated, the crew did not do an "exceptional job" in handling this emergency. I do not buy into dispatch, maintenance or whomever requesting the crew to hold so the landing would not have to be written up as an over-weight landing. Think about it, the "engine failed" write up would be hugely more important and involved than an over-weight landing write up. Plus I don't think anyone is stupid enough to stick their neck out that far.

Surely there is a check airman on this forum, or at least someone that knows a check airman or an ACSI(Fed). How would they de-breif this scenario if it happened in the Simulator?

Several have posted that since all ended well, all is well. Sorry to tell you but that is just not the case in a situation like this. See my previous post on the commuter engine failure going into Denver as an example.

If the facts here are indeed "facts", this crew has some explaining to do. And that is a fact.

 

[brokenwrench]

All the same - JT8D's - although at least one of the 727 re-engining mods left the center engine alone and put MD-80 engines in the 1 & 3 position.

Asymetrical thrust was minor compared to the 737 or 320. As someone mentioned, the #3 didn't have a hydraulic pump so losing that one left the A system (IIRC) at 100% capacity.

Jim

For what it is worth Jim the MD-80 engines were the "big 8s" or -219s. The ones I worked on had about 19000lbs of thrust.

 

[BoeingBoy]

the MD-80 engines were the "big 8s" or -219s.

Thanks - for the life of me I didn't remember the model # and was too lazy to dig it up..

Jim

 

[brokenwrench]

Thanks - for the life of me I didn't remember the model # and was too lazy to dig it up..

Jim

No worries. That was a great plane and a great engine.

 

[ussnark]

Maint Control would NEVER jeopardize the safety of customers and crew to save a buck (or save sending a mechanic to do an inspection).

BS, they do it all the time.

Faxing "instructions" to mechanic citing "pilot who said he got it from Airbus tech rep." as justification for a procedure not in anyones book.

Not ensuring W&B data correct for specific aircraft, over a three week period.

Attempting to dissuade pilot from making "severe turbulence write-up", after encountering severe turbulence.

 

[mastertrust]

As I reported, last week I received a letter apologizing for the problems with the flight and a $300 travel voucher. However, still no mileage or segment credit for the flight. So I sent of a request for the missing mileage, with the ticket number, date, confirm number, flight number, departing and arriving city. Everything they said they needed. Today, I got a email from the dividend miles service center saying they had no record I was on the flight. (NOT that the flight never existed, just that they have been unable to verify that I was on the flight). I've suggested they contact their customer service department and find out why I got a letter and voucher if I was never on the flight in the first place.

What a mess, the IT stuff at LCC just gets worse and worse.
__________________

 

[320driver]

Ahem.

The flight deck crew did not do "due diligence". They FU, big time. They endangered every person on board.

The nut cutter was the company (Tempe) did not want to fly a qualified mechanic into Louisville to inspect the aircraft, so they talked an apparently novice flight deck crew into holding so as to land below max landing weight.

This is the reason we talk about experience. No east crew would have agreed with such a pathetic course of action. Most, including me, would have landed immediately. Some might have considered other alternatives. All would have been safer than what actually happened.

My friend at a local GADO thinks the flight deck crew are in a bunch of trouble.

But that seems to comport with A&W corporate policy, punish the employees who cannot fight back. Cretins.

Killing Tempe might be the best thing we could do for this world.

Hey A&&wipe if you lost an engine on a aircraft that had a fuel dump system you would hold to dump fuel to get to landing weight right so a a/c without a fuel dump system cant so the have to burn down to landing weight or at least to a point that the crew feel safe to land the A/C without any other problems like single engine go around high hot day so stop talking out of your ass about this crew every last A/B pilots on the west will fly circles around your simple ass even the F/A too.

 

[N924PS]

Hey A&&wipe if you lost an engine on a aircraft that had a fuel dump system you would hold to dump fuel to get to landing weight right so a a/c without a fuel dump system cant so the have to burn down to landing weight or at least to a point that the crew feel safe to land the A/C without any other problems like single engine go around high hot day so stop talking out of your ass about this crew every last A/B pilots on the west will fly circles around your simple ass even the F/A too.

Your a class act.

 

[X-U]

http://www.pilotosdeiberia.com/areatec/air...1overw_land.htm

 

[EastUS]

Hey A&&wipe if you lost an engine on a aircraft that had a fuel dump system you would hold to dump fuel to get to landing weight right

Ummm...that's complete and total BS. Been there/done that as per engine losses with/without a dump system. Dump/Burn what you can as you head for the landing. Only an irresponsible and clueless MORON would hold merely to reduce the aircraft weight whilst driving around with an engine out. Did it ever, even for the briefest of moments, occur to you to wonder just what might have caused the flameout/failure of the lost engine? Have you never heard of fuel contamination via water, filter/pump failures/bad fuel/etc? Do you think it appropriate to drone around and wait for it to perhaps get "really quiet"? Do you not actually know how to fly? Can't you set a heavy bird down gently?....Geezuess! As per your nonsense about Go Arounds single engine: WHAT??..Leeme' see if I've got this = The aircraft's OK to hold indefinately..or at least as required just to burn down fuel in your model....BUT: The infintessimally tiny potential need for a single engine GA that might tax your skills and/or the aircraft's performance envelope the slightest bit's great justification for hanging in the sky...perhaps awaiting an additional flameout.....?

Oh!...I get it = Since you've already lost one engine for causes unknown...the other one MUST be functioning perfectly, and couldn't POSSIBLY ever quit on you.

YOU might want to go lighter on the "Hey A&&wipe" stupidity.

I do not know what the conditions/locations involved in the thread's mentioned event were. I'm not judging the guys involved here by the above response by ANY means. This is in direct reply to the assinine notion of holding, with an engine out, merely for landing weight...and extending the time aloft for no reasonable purpose.