DAL 1457 emergency about to land in ATL
07-23-2010 | 04:22 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
!!
07-23-2010 | 06:09 PM
#15
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
You're so bad.
07-23-2010 | 11:51 PM
#18
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Question for the fine pilots on this board.
In the case of DL1457 that blew a tire at take off from ATL it circled long enough to burn/dump fuel for a safer landing.
Why not burn the fuel flying to Portland?
Aside from ATL having more (an perhaps longer runways) what is the reason not to complete the flight?
After all, landing with a blown tire statistically (and to the credit of great pilots) is pretty uneventful, and in the event of problems one place is as bad as the other.
In the case of DL1457 that blew a tire at take off from ATL it circled long enough to burn/dump fuel for a safer landing.
Why not burn the fuel flying to Portland?
Aside from ATL having more (an perhaps longer runways) what is the reason not to complete the flight?
After all, landing with a blown tire statistically (and to the credit of great pilots) is pretty uneventful, and in the event of problems one place is as bad as the other.
07-24-2010 | 05:39 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: 777 F/O
Probably because they have their own MX at ATL. I can see the flight continuing on to ATL from somewhere else if it happened. They may also be required by OPSPECS to land at the "nearest suitable airport" in such an event as well.
07-24-2010 | 05:46 AM
#20
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 12
From: A320
From my experience working MX in the past, it's not only the ability to land or control the aircraft that concerns the operation. It's made up of a few things. One of the major concerns is the possible damage to the aircraft from the tire falling apart at high speeds. We all remember the Concorde.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
