Back to Squawk list
  • 40

Air Canada jet carrying 130 'is preparing for an emergency landing at Madrid airport

제출됨
 
An Air Canada Boeing 767 is set to make an emergency landing at an airport in Madrid after part of its landing gear reportedly fell off and entered its engines. The plane bound for Toronto carrying 130 passengers is expected to land around 6pm local time after spending three hours circling Madrid to burn as much fuel as possible. (www.dailymail.co.uk) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


mbrews
mbrews 10
Other info : ACA837 was departing Madrid's runway 36L when the left hand engine (CF6) suffered a number of compressor stalls emitting bangs and streaks of flame. The crew shut the engine down, levelled at 5000 feet initially, later orbiting hold at 8000 feet to burn off fuel and have the landing gear inspected by fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft confirmed one of the tires was blown. The Air Canada 767 aircraft landed safely at Madrid Barajas about 4 hours after departure.
ptillotson
Hmmmmmmm, huge difference between part of the landing gear falling of and having a blown tire. Glad everyone is okay.
Highflyer1950
True, but I have heard of a tire disintegrating on the take off roll and flinging debris ahead of the engine which it then ingests damaging fan blades. Remote but plausible.
djames225
In a case like that, you could say part of the landing gear fell off. Sounds like you remote but plausible theory happened here.
bbabis
bbabis 3
I agree with the tire shedding parts into the engine. All agree that the news rarely gets it right.
raleedy
AF Concorde, maybe?
TorstenHoff
That was somewhat different, nothing was ingested into the engine. The tire was cut by debris left on the runway by another aircraft, and the tire exploded and punctured the fuel tank in the left wing. Fuel gushing from under the wing was then lit by the engine exhaust (the Concorde had afterburners).
KicksOnRoute66
In before someone blames Boeing
d0ugparker
Circling with only one engine for three hours to burn off fuel. Why not dump it? Lose that other engine, and you've lost all chances of dumping anything.

That doesn't seem right.
djames225
A: Madrid has no real major "dump area" for the amt needed to get rid of and B: they had to wait for a chase aircraft to inspect the gear anyhow. And if the other engine shut down, it would become 1 big glider. Remember Gimli Manitoba or Air Transat 236.
adwri
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA837
nasdisco
Chris B 1
The Daily Mail is well known for clickbait stories. But the current version of the story that they are releasing at least has video etc.
yr2012
[url]http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/database/index.php?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=VIV-20200203-70611-ESP[/url]
jacoy
andy coy 1
No where to dump fuel? Why the 3 hour burn vs dump?
Highflyer1950
Some early model -300’s were not equipped with fuel dump. Also, the fuel dump only empties the centre tank so depending on max landing weight it may not help. With only 130 pax the aircraft should have been pretty light unless there was a good deal of cargo loaded?
jacoy
andy coy -1
Wow, thanks for the info. I was under the impression that they could all do it for safety, but now I know...at least they didn't dump it on a school like DAL 89!!!
MrTommy
MrTommy 1
And, you can't 'accidentally' dump ALL your fuel and have an even BIGGER emergency.
wopri
Has landed safely

https://youtu.be/rt6htNR10Vs
pilot62
sorry but this can hardly be seen
lindgrenslo
The pilots performed the correct procedure. The aircraft requires reverse thrust from both engines to safely slow down after landing.

To attemp an overweight landing with damaged tires and asymmetrical reverse thrust is never advisable especially with wing mounted engines unless there is a greater emergency such as smoke in the cabin or fire.
Highflyer1950
Actually, reverse thrust is not factored into landing distance or runway length requirements. Single engine reversing although not as effective is still available as an assist. The thing about overweight landing is there are no charted distances other than then usual add ons for contamination.
lindgrenslo
I agree and stand corrected. Should have said overweight landing not advisable with asymmetric thrust especially with blown tires.
baingm
The aircraft DOES NOT require reverse thrust from both engines. The crew shut down the engine so reverse thrust would not be available if it wan't running. The crew did indeed perform the correct procedure. Good job!
nofossil70
Landed 4 days ago. Back in service. Time to remove
ronschach
ron schach -3
For those who have forgotten, and from a retired airline pilot, the dump fuel or burn fuel to make a landing does not have to be done that way. Make your over weight landing and enter it in the log book as an over weight landing. No need to waste the fuel or the money. Check with your maintenance department gentlemen in the cockpit.
bbabis
bbabis 4
That is a very good point to remember Ron. In this instance though, with the landing gear already compromised in some way, it was best to avoid the overweight landing.
ronschach
ron schach -5
You need to talk to your maintenance department on the capability of your aircraft with one or two unusable tires and the cost of dumping fuel on the school yard. Those kids will claim medical problems for the rest of their lives. That cost won't be over for decades. Reverse thrust doesn't change with overweight landing, read the ops and maintenance manuals.
Highflyer1950
I think you referring to the wrong squawk.
djames225
For some reason, I think he's inferring to 2 squawks, the Delta 89 and this 1
ronschach
I am referring to flights that spend hours flying around burning off fuel or dumping it vs. an overweight landing and the log book entry required for such a landing. Seems there have been several lately.
djames225
There is a difference between slight overweight landing, and severe overweight landing. Also aircraft specs, in this case MTOW 159,000 kg and MLW of 136,078 and that is with good landing gear and engines.
While I severely disagree of how and where Delta 89 dumped, again plane specs of MTOW 297,550kg and MLW 213,000kg and that again is with good engines, which this particular craft did not have.
Highflyer1950
A slightly overweight landing may only require an inspection after it’s been entered in the log book. However, depending on the exact aircraft landing weight, it may involve a more in depth inspection, dye penetration, non-destructive testing or even landing gear removal and overhaul.......very, very expensive and time consuming with the “assumption“ you are already at a maintenance base! Fuel is the least expensive option.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료