You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
Aircraft # N454AA had a deferred L Start Valve, wired shut due to a previous writeup in which the L START VALVE ON light did not illuminate during engine start. When the valve is wired shut, it must be manually opened by MTX for engine starts.
Supposedly, on the day of the emergency, the L START VALVE ON light illuminated while climbing out of 2500msl, and the starter exploded out through the top of the engine, taking out the L generator and somehow screwing up the L hydraulic system, and causing the engine fire. The crew performed a quick downwind but could not extend the gear due to the hydraulic issues. They performed a manual gear extension and landed. After ARFF doused the fire the pax were deplaned through airstairs.
The theory going around is that the start valve "unsecured" itself, allowing ram air to blow into the starter and spin it up to super high RPMs, causing its failure.
To the crew of AA1400, a fantastic, professional job well done!
I'm just wondering... do the pax on that flight (all 140 of them) think we are overpaid?
Aircraft # N454AA had a deferred L Start Valve, wired shut due to a previous writeup in which the L START VALVE ON light did not illuminate during engine start. When the valve is wired shut, it must be manually opened by MTX for engine starts.
Supposedly, on the day of the emergency, the L START VALVE ON light illuminated while climbing out of 2500msl, and the starter exploded out through the top of the engine, taking out the L generator and somehow screwing up the L hydraulic system, and causing the engine fire. The crew performed a quick downwind but could not extend the gear due to the hydraulic issues. They performed a manual gear extension and landed. After ARFF doused the fire the pax were deplaned through airstairs.
The theory going around is that the start valve "unsecured" itself, allowing ram air to blow into the starter and spin it up to super high RPMs, causing its failure.
To the crew of AA1400, a fantastic, professional job well done!
I'm just wondering... do the pax on that flight (all 140 of them) think we are overpaid?
73
Hey, was that you causing all the trouble out there
STL-ORD. Nicely done, but I wonder---will NTSB and FAA inquire as to why the crew didn't evacuate? Usually, when landing with a confirmed fire, that's pretty standard. I wasn't there, but I would ask the question.
I was listening to tower freq while this was going on and it seemed like the crew didn't know there was still a fire. CFR got to the aircraft in short order and foamed it. With the fire contained quick do you think the crew might have thought it more dangerous to have 140 pax pushing their way towards the slides?
Would the hyd system failure explain the nose gear not coming down the first time around? I thought that they would all free-fall like the mains do (gear doors were open). They did a single engine go-around. As they flew past the tower the mains were down but the nose was not.
STL-ORD. Nicely done, but I wonder---will NTSB and FAA inquire as to why the crew didn't evacuate? Usually, when landing with a confirmed fire, that's pretty standard. I wasn't there, but I would ask the question.
B757,
From what I've heard the fire was extinguished pretty quickly after rolling to a stop. During these scenarios the crew maintains communication with the tower/ARFF to assess the situation. In many cases, if the threat is no longer there, it makes sense NOT to evacuate because there is always the possibility of injury during an evacuation. We must balance the importance of slight injury during evacuation vs. the risk of greater injury or death by NOT evacuating. (That's why we get paid the big bucks!)
In this case, I think it was the right call. Now, if the ARFF/tower would have told them they were still on fire, I think an evacuation would have been warranted.
A few years ago we had a Fokker100 in DFW land and collapse a main gear. The aircraft slid to a stop on the runway with no fire and no injury to anyone. After evaluating with the tower, the captain decided not to evacuate. It was also the right call, since based on the conditions outside, there was no real threat that warranted an evacuation.
I was listening to tower freq while this was going on and it seemed like the crew didn't know there was still a fire. CFR got to the aircraft in short order and foamed it. With the fire contained quick do you think the crew might have thought it more dangerous to have 140 pax pushing their way towards the slides?
Would the hyd system failure explain the nose gear not coming down the first time around? I thought that they would all free-fall like the mains do (gear doors were open). They did a single engine go-around. As they flew past the tower the mains were down but the nose was not.
Yes, the Hyd failure accounted for the gear not coming down right away. On the 80, it doesn't free fall, you have to manually crank it down.
Yes, the Hyd failure accounted for the gear not coming down right away. On the 80, it doesn't free fall, you have to manually crank it down.
Huh? If so, AA's MD80s must be radically different from Delta's. Our DC9s and MD88s had a handle in the floor by the F/O's left foot. Pulling that lever would mechanically release the main gear door latches and nose gear over-center lock, and place the gear hydraulic system in bypass, allowing the gear to free fall and lock into the down position.
According to the manual, nose oscillations might be required to get the nose gear to lock.
AA1400 - STL engine fire - what went wrong
Linear Mode
