Breaking: American Flight 862 with 132 people on board

[Subdivisions]

to make emergency landing at Miami International. Looks like a landing gear did not lock into place.

MSNBC.

Plane nose gear problem. Currently burning off fuel.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yikes. It'll probably be on TV--Ghoul Alert! Ghoul Alert! Hope it turns out OK. I won't watch.

[idovoodoo]

2. Stuck nosewheel...not a big deal.

:-)

[yellowcanine]

3. Any emergency landing is potentially a big deal.

[idovoodoo]

16. I wouldn't even call it an "emergency" landing. This happens often and nobody ever gets a scratch

unless they get stupid and have the pax go down the slides.

[Virginia Dare]

10. It is when you're on the plane..

this happened to my sister once, it was scary as hell.

[Aviation Pro]

4. This is a standard profile during recurrent training....

...they'll dump fuel to lighten the load, set the main gear, have a slower than normal Vref, touchdown on the main gear and hold off the nose as long as possible to minimize damage (I forget whether they apply the thrust reversers or not during this procedure). There will be a shower of sparks and the aircraft will come to a screeching halt with few if any bumps or bruises.

[DemoTex]

5. No fuel dumping anymore.

None of today's jetliners have the capability to dump fuel. Fuel loads are reduced to a minimum safe level by butning the fuel in flight .. usually in a holding pattern.

[Aviation Pro]

6. I thought 75s have OJTs....

...but I may be mistaken.

[Hepburn]

12. According to the commercial passenger pilot on MSNBC....

...in case of an extreme emergency, they can dump fuel.

:shrug:

[DemoTex]

14. Trust me. I was an MD-80 captain.

An MD-80 cannot dump fuel .. ever. Period.

[Hepburn]

21. Hell, I don't even know what that plane is that you captained!!

Here is my total experience: I have two hours of ground school and about 4 hours in a Cessna 172, left seat, for the limited purposes of learning what the emergency radio frequency is and how to land the thing if I absolutely had to....cuz I fly a lot with a friend who is a private pilot and I do NOT want to be in the air with him and have him pass out and there I am ~~ with NO clue on how to land that puppy. He also has a Navajo which is a twin and there is always another pilot on board who can fly the thing....so I just sit in the back and relax and raid the refrig!

I envy anyone who has the talent and the nerves to fly one of those huge planes. My hat is off to you! I guess the guy on MSNBC did not know about that specific plane. Thanks for the info.

[DemoTex]

22. McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 (originally called the DC-9-80)

MD-80 cockpit (no .. that's not me!)

[Hepburn]

24. Hey, thank you!

I do know what that plane is...I recognize the pictures. You are a sweetie for educating me! :hi:

[trof]

26. You're kidding.

When did that start?
The last time I dumped fuel we would have been circling over the North Sea for HOURS burning off fuel.
747 out of Amsterdam bound for Anchorage.
When did they 'delete' the dump feature?
Sorry, I just can't believe that.

[DemoTex]

28. The B-737/757, Airbus A-320 family and MD-80 have no fuel dump capability.

As jets began flying with U.S. airlines in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the FAA rule in effect at the time mandated that if the difference between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 105%, the aircraft had to have a fuel dump system installed. Accordingly, aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8 had fuel dump systems. Any of those aircraft needing to return to a takeoff airport above the maximum structural landing weight would simply jettison an amount of fuel sufficient to reduce the aircraft's total weight to below that maximum structural landing weight limit, and then land.

During the 1960s, Boeing introduced the 737, and Douglas the DC-9, the original models of each being for shorter routes; the 105% figure was not an issue, thus they had no fuel dump systems installed. During the 1960s and 1970s, both Boeing and Douglas "grew" their respective aircraft as far as operational capabilities were concerned via Pratt & Whitney's development of increasingly powerful variants of the JT8D engines that powered both aircraft series. Both aircraft were now capable of longer duration flights, with increased weight limits, and complying with the existing 105% rule became problematic due to the costs associated with adding a fuel dump system to aircraft in production. Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, and FAR 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.

Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed. In the event of an emergency requiring a return to the departure airport, the aircraft circles nearby in order to consume fuel to get down to within the maximum structural landing weight limit, or if the situation demands it, simply lands overweight without delay. Modern aircraft are designed for possible overweight landings in mind, but this is not done except in cases of emergency, and various maintenance inspections are required afterwards. Many movies and TV news stories mistakenly assume that all aircraft can dump fuel, when in fact most cannot. In certain atmospheric conditions where the moisture content of the air is high, 737s (and other aircraft) flying at low altitudes sometimes leave a moisture trail that can come off the top of the wing, wingtips, or trailing edge flaps. Moisture trails coming off the trailing edge flaps can appear especially odd, since the moisture is being "spun" by aerodynamic forces. It's quite possible that some people observe these moisture trails and may think this is fuel being dumped, but it's just water vapor, and not fuel.

Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and 777 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

[trof]

29. I just called my flight test/ferry pilot buddy. Damn. You're right.

Not that I really doubted you.
I was just amazed.
My friend is retired TWA line captain and line/simulator instructor. FAA designee flight test/check airman and all that. But at age 67 can still do ferry and flight test/aircraft acceptance flights.
Makes a damn good retirement income doing it.

He goes all over the world.
Does a lot of work for GE leasing and others.

Anyway, he confirms about no fuel dump capability on many newer aircraft.
"How you feel about that?"
"No problem. We just land overweight. 767 can take off with full fuel load, lose an engine after take-off and return and land."
Who knew?
Guess I been gone too long.
:shrug:

[DemoTex]

7. From American's website, it looks like AA-862 is a MD-80.

PBI => ORD

[Aviation Pro]

8. Yep, just confirmed that.....

....should be OK and you were right about the fuel dumping. Funny thing is that the AIM still carries the procedure.

[DemoTex]

9. There are some real old 727s flying in the world with fuel dump capability.

I used to fly a corporate Lockheed JetStar II that had a fuel dump system. We practiced fuel dumping in the simulator, but never used it in real life.

[Aviation Pro]

11. Thank goodness for that....

...

[Aviation Pro]

13. The other idiotic thing....

...is that the ATP written still has that Godforsaken fuel dump chart and the really weird questions. And yes it is in the 72 section.

[DemoTex]

17. Probably the same writ I took in the mid-1970s.

I do seem to recall fuel-dump questions on the ATP and FE writtens.

[Aviation Pro]

19. You probably remember the chart....

...on the Y coordinate you had the Initial Fuel Weight in 1000 lb increments and on the X coordinate (at the top of the chart) the ending fuel weight in 1000's of lbs too. In the main body of the chart was the grid with all the fuel dump times. The question involved the starting weight (starting fuel + ZFW) and ZFW and you were asked to calculate how many pounds you would have to dump and how much time (the weight and time were always interpolated).

Fun times.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Great sig quote.

I have no idea what you two are talking about, but DemoTex is one of my all-time favorite DUers...so if you understand all his roger-wilco gibberish, you must be a solid citizen.

;)

"Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement."

Indeed.

:toast:

[Wcross]

15. All is well, on the ground safe & sound. n/t

[TahitiNut]

18. I enjoy watching coverage of such 'events' for one reason.

I enjoy watching pilots practice their craft at the peak of their skills. In each of these landings, I've seen remarkable control and care taken. No matter what the craft is, excellent craftsmanship is worth watching, imho.

[rsmith6621]

20. Just Another Day In The Aviation Industry.....

.........So just move along.....It would scare you to know how many emergency landings are done everyday...there are more scary scenarios such as rapid decompression due to a flight deck windscreen shattering in the Captains lap....

The JetBlue deal at LAX was a non-news event as well the nose gear preformed as it should have because of a hydraulic failure....the crews on Airbuses train for it.

............Again Move along....more sensational reporting.

[Missy Vixen]

23. Perhaps. At the same time, for someone with

an almost crippling fear of flying, I'm thankful to know that pilots train, train and re-train for stuff like this. Plus, it's always nice to know that they get that plane on the ground in one piece and everyone walks away.

Let's face it: I've been reading DemoTex' comments on DU for years now. If he was flying, I'd go, and I wouldn't be scared. He knows what he's doing.

Julie

[Bunny]

25. Me too. DemoTex and trof - if they were on board, I'd be there.

Otherwise, I hate flying!

[Johnyawl]

27. If he{DemoTex} was flying, I'd go, and I wouldn't be scared.

Unless he had a flashback and took that MD-80 down to the tree tops! hahahahaha

oh, hell, I'd fly with DemoTex even if he was knocking the leaves off the trees.

John

[Missy Vixen]

31. Hi Johnyawl!

:hi:!

>oh, hell, I'd fly with DemoTex even if he was knocking the leaves off the trees.<

We'd have some fun! Of course, we'd all be totally confident, and I bet he'd be laughing!

Julie

p.s. Were you guys living here during the time the guy did the barrel roll with the 727 (?) over Lake Washington?

[Johnyawl]

36. Hi Julie

That infamous barrel roll was a 707 dash 80. The test pilot was Tex Johnston,(hmmmmm. I wonder. Any relation to DemoTex? hehehehe)

That stunt happened long before I settled in this neighborhood, and I been here a looooooong time. I don't think Geni was even born when that took place.

The airplane that did that is now at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, on permenent display.

Good video of it here. http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

[DemoTex]

37. No kin. Johnson demonstrated "energy management." My friend Bob Hoover perfected it.

Here is another link to Tex Johnson's infamous roll;

http://vidsearch.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=886043513

Here is Bob Hoover practicing "energy management" in it's highest form. Pay attention to the bit at the end about rolling a T-39 Sabreliner with a bunch of USAF generals on board:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE

BTW: Thanks, for the kind words .. Johnyyawl, JulieRB, and Will Pitt!

[idovoodoo]

38. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr Hoover do the Aero Commander routine

on one occasion, the P-51 show on another and the great honor of having dinner with him and some dignitaries
including my old friend Paul Poberezny on yet another. :D

[WilliamPitt]

34. Amen

[TheCentepedeShoes]

30. I was on a San Juan to Miami

Eastern L-1011 when we had a nose gear lock problem. This was back in the late 70's, a couple or so years after that other NY to Miami Eastern L-1011 crashed in the glades. Nose gear on that one, too, and the plane got accidentally knocked off auto pilot while the flight crew was trying to figure out the issue. There was a book about people who thought they saw crew ghosts on other planes that took on salvaged parts from the crashed one.
We landed ok, lots of fire and ambulance equipment standing by in case we didn't. It was scary.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. i have been in one of these sorts of landings

and i have to say the pilots did the most incredible things to make sure that touchdown was safe for all aboard. i am not saying that it wasn't a little tense, but the pilot kept the nose of that plane up until it felt like we were doing only 15mph or so before letting it fall to the ground...we slid another few feet and it was all over...we DID get to go down the escape slide though...

sP

[trusty elf]

35. A colleague of mine was on a domestic flight in Columbia

a few years ago, and the passengers were told to prepare for an emergency landing. She's very nervous about flying and must have been terrified imagining what was going to happen. The plane did indeed make an emergency landing, but the slides weren't deployed! When she asked them why the f#ck they didn't deploy them, she was told that it was too expensive to do so.