Another Emergency Landing

[robbedagain]

the best part of it all was at least they got the pax and crew and plane down safely and no oneinjured. does anyone know what could cause that engine to shut down?

 

[JS]

Greetings all. I'm the passenger who posted the trip report on Flyer talk that was quoted earlier in this thread. I can assure you that while I may be off on a few details (engine failure might have been closer to 1 1/2 hours after take off) my summary regarding the actions and information supplied by the flight crew is accurate. Once arriving at SDF we circled the airport for at least 45 minutes, with the airport runways clearly visibile through the windows for most of that time. We were told by the flight crew that we were too heavy to land. The pilot gave us the current weight, told us the burn rate of the fuel and said at that burn rate we would need to circle for about 45 minutes. Later, he came back on, announced we had burned off enough fuel, cabin crew gave normal landing instructions and we landed. Emergency crews were out on the runway; we were told they were going to inspect the engine for fire threat and then we taxed to the gate and were met by USAIR gate crew.

I felt pretty good about the experience until reading the reactions to this thread. I have no idea if proper procedures were followed but once again I can assure you that I've posted what was relayed to us by the flight and cabin crews.

Welcome to (Randy-free) USaviation.com! Hope you enjoy it here!

 

[N903AW]

does anyone know what could cause that engine to shut down?

Excess duct tape in the compressor. :blink:

 

[oldcrow]

Once arriving at SDF we circled the airport for at least 45 minutes, with the airport runways clearly visibile through the windows for most of that time. We were told by the flight crew that we were too heavy to land. The pilot gave us the current weight, told us the burn rate of the fuel and said at that burn rate we would need to circle for about 45 minutes. Later, he came back on, announced we had burned off enough fuel, cabin crew gave normal landing instructions and we landed.

ECAM says to "Land ASAP" after an engine failure. The Airbus 320 can safely land well above the certifcated maximum landing weight of 142,200 lbs, if it couldn't it would have a fuel dump system to be certified. Maybe the crew had a legitimate reason to not land ASAP and burn fuel instead.

I can't think of one off the top of my head though.

 

[soc-hpjester]

Compressor stall at cruise. And no, once again there is no over weight landing in an a-320 except when the sink rate is exceeded. Ask any airbus mx controller. It is just a logbood entry.

 

[mastertrust]

Still no mileage credit for either the diverted flight or the makeup the next day, but I did receive an apology letter and a $300 voucher this morning. Usual?

 

[BoeingBoy]

And no, once again there is no over weight landing in an a-320 except when the sink rate is exceeded. Ask any airbus mx controller. It is just a logbood entry.

That's the second time you've said that and it's still false. Any time you land an aircraft over it's maximum approved landing weight it is an overweight landing.

I suspect what you intend to say is that there are no special maintenance actions required after an overweight landing as long as touch down is below a certain rate of descent.

Just what is that rate of descent, BTW.

Jim

 

[N924PS]

Just what is that rate of descent, BTW.

Jim

I thought I saw in a logook signoff for an overweight landing that said no special inspections were required overweight if the sink rate at touchdown was less than 360 fpm.

That was for an A319/320/321.

 

[tech2101]

For a routine engine failure (no fire) there's simply no need to rush.

Is this what you have come to expect?

In my many years in airline maintenance, engine failure was never a 'routine' event.

 

[JS]

Is this what you have come to expect?

In my many years in airline maintenance, engine failure was never a 'routine' event.

By engine failure standards, routine means it didn't blow up or catch fire or fall off.

 

[flytchick]

WOW - With all the "Monday morning quarterbacks" you all should have a great fall season. Give it a rest. These guys did their job, the plane landed safely - nobody was hurt. MOVE ON!! God knows there are numerous other topics for you to discuss..... just take a look at the posts - I am sure you'll find something.....

 

[700UW]

Any logbook entry must be signed off by mtc.

And there is an overwieght landing inspection required when a plane lands overwieght.

 

[exB717Flyer]

And there is an overwieght landing inspection required when a plane lands overwieght.

As Jim stated, ONLY if the descent rate exceeded the limit (360fpm?) at touchdown. Otherwise, it's a quick signoff and you're on your way.

 

[700UW]

1. INTRODUCTION

For all aircraft a Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) is published in the Flight Manual.

If this limitation is exceeded, an overweight landing is performed.

The concerns for this type of landings are:

the structural consequences,

the performance (for both landing and go-around),

the handling of the aircraft (including the behavior of some systems, as, for example, the autoland).

2. IN WHICH CONDITIONS CAN YOU PERFORM AN OVERWEIGHT LANDING?

On A320/A330/A340, landing can be performed up to the Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW). However, this must be restricted to some exceptional cases, as indicated in the FCOM 3.01.20 page 2 (WEIGHT LIMITATIONS chapter), which shows:

“In exceptional conditions (in flight turn back or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted provided that the pilot follows the overweight landing procedure.â€￾

“Exceptional conditionsâ€￾ means any failure or other emergency leading to land earlier than expected.

At destination, all the precautions should be taken so as to make the best estimate of fuel trip and not to exceed the maximum landing weight.



3. STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES

The conditions requiring a structural inspection are given in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (05-51-11-601).

The inspection is required only if a hard landing is performed.

A hard landing is defined by a vertical speed at touch down exceeding a threshold. This threshold depends on the aircraft weight.

In case of overweight landing, the inspection is required if the vertical speed at touch down exceeds 360 ft/min. (or if 1.4g on A330/340 or 1.7g on A319/320/321 at CG is reached).

 

[ussnark]

As Jim stated, ONLY if the descent rate exceeded the limit (360fpm?) at touchdown. Otherwise, it's a quick signoff and you're on your way.

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.