Mechanical Glitch Forces Return Of Plane

smallstFSA

Advanced
Dec 22, 2002
124
0
Story last updated at 7:43 a.m. Tuesday, April 20, 2004


Mechanical glitch forces return of plane to airport
BY JESSICA VANEGEREN
Of The Post and Courier Staff
Charleston native Richard Hagerty attends boarding school three miles from the Pentagon. He vividly remembers Sept. 11, 2001, when the school's walls shook from the impact of terrorists flying a passenger plane into the government compound.

He wrestled with that memory Sunday night when he and 49 other passengers aboard a U.S. Airways flight were told to assume the crash position for "an emergency landing."

Many passengers held hands, prayed and phoned loved ones. Hagerty, 18, did none of those things. Seated in the exit row, he concentrated on the emergency row pamphlet to learn what he would need to do if the plane landed somewhere other than on a runway.

"I was paralyzed with fear. I didn't know how I would open that (emergency exit) door," said Hagerty, a senior at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va. "When you have your face in your lap, it makes you think the situation is serious."

Hagerty said that although the flight attendant remained calm, his own frenzied state was fueled by the lack of information provided to passengers during the 20 minutes they remained hunched over in their seats.

"They never said where we were landing," he said. "For all we knew, we could have landed in the Atlantic Ocean. I didn't know where we were until the plane stopped and I sat up and saw the airport."

He was back at home, at Charleston International Airport.

Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman with U.S. Airways, said the plane returned to Charleston and was grounded because of a mechanical difficulty.

"Shortly after takeoff, the flight crew received a warning that the landing gear would not retract," Kudwa said. "The aircraft returned to the field. That happens every day."

She said it is typical procedure for passengers to assume the hunched-over, emergency crash position when there is a problem with the plane's landing gear.

"What happened on that flight was not routine," Hagerty said. "It was hell. People were talking on cell phones like it was their last conversation with their loved ones."

No incident report was filed with the Federal Aviation Administration detailing the difficulties experienced by the U.S. Airways plane Sunday.

Bill Twiddy, U.S. Airways station manager for Charleston and Myrtle Beach, did not learn about the incident until Monday morning.

Area officials with the Transportation Security Administration and the Charleston County Aviation Authority were not notified of the incident, an indication the flight was not grounded because of security reasons.

"I would have heard about it if it was anything security related," said Debra Engel, the TSA's federal security director for Charleston and Myrtle Beach.

Rattled, the passengers returned safely to Charleston instead of landing in Washington. Most, including Hagerty, walked off the plane crying.

"He (the pilot) deserves kudos for landing us safely," Hagerty said Monday.

Kudwa said maintenance crews in Charleston fixed the landing gear, and the plane again departed for its original destination at 7:50 p.m. Sunday. Twelve of the original passengers were aboard the second flight. Hagerty was not. His flight back to school departed Charleston about 4 p.m. Monday.
 
smallstFSA said:
Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman with U.S. Airways, said the plane returned to Charleston and was grounded because of a mechanical difficulty.

"Shortly after takeoff, the flight crew received a warning that the landing gear would not retract," Kudwa said. "The aircraft returned to the field. That happens every day."
OOOOkay, I'll bite; please explain to me why a spokesperson is saying that returning to the field due to a mechanical, "happens every day."
 
"Shortly after takeoff, the flight crew received a warning that the landing gear would not retract," Kudwa said. "The aircraft returned to the field. That happens every day."

Having had a gear that wouldn't retract a few months ago, this sounds just a little fishy to me - anyone have any further info?

Jim
 
delldude said:
wasn't airbus a/c 708 fresh out of mobile was it?
see no mention of tail numbers...duh...
708 test flew Monday and flew well. It came back into service Monday night.
This story mentions the incident happening Sunday.
 
C'mon dude......didn't you hear Mr. Castlevelter state that, "We are pleased with the work accomplished at Mobile Aerospace."

Foreign owned MAE would never turn out an aircraft that didn't work (Exponential sarcasm!!)

IDIOTS!!!! :p :p
 
Tell ya what, guys. How's about we wait until we know what A/C it was before pointing fingers at MAE, huh? Won't you be embarrassed if you find out it was a 737...which, if the flight was bound for CLT, it would have been.
 
Just a quick check of the web site indicates it was either a Dash8, RJ, or 737, depending on the destination. Could have missed some possibilities, though.

Jim
 
Yup, that was my source as well. I suppose it could have been the Dash-8 or RJ, but I figured on it being the bigger bird.

Regardless, it doesn't sound like anything MAE did. Would one of the MAE-bashers care to comment on the quality of the insourced work on that A/C? :eek:
 
The article mentions "flight attendant" in the singular, nothing about flight attendants.

Take that and the fact that the article stated, "Rattled, the passengers returned safely to Charleston instead of landing in Washington. Most, including Hagerty, walked off the plane crying," you'll know that it was a Dash-8.

So the MAE nay-sayers will have to save their crying and belly aching for another time.
 
I believe in being fair. While the first couple of aircraft out of MAE had "issues", the typical ones (and we all know who they are) that are quick to point out those issues, never point out our aircraft problems.So, in the interest of fairness, I will.
It seems that a/c 620 has not flown right since it came out of maintenance in PIT. It has been maintenance ferried to CLT for repairs and stayed there for many shifts while our guys figured out what happened to the aircraft since it had no history of problems before it went into maintanance.
While I have total confidence in the product we put out, I point it out to show that issues can come up on our product as well.
 
smallstFSA said:
"What happened on that flight was not routine," Hagerty said. "It was hell. People were talking on cell phones like it was their last conversation with their loved ones."
This story reminds me of a flight I took when I was in college (longer ago than I care to think about) aboard a 19 seat commuter plane. Soon after take-off I noticed the first officer pull shut the curtain behind the cockpit. I had taken this commuter line before and the curtain had always remained open. I then noticed that we had leveled out and were starting a wide turn back towards the airport. A few other passengers were glancing out the window, others were reading their newspapers. No one seemed concerned.

The captain then annouced that he was sorry for the delay but we were returning to the field; the light that showed the gear retracted had not come on. (I had heard the gear come up and back down a bit later). He reassured everyone that there was no danger or cause for concern.

No one cried (this was before cell phones were common so nobody called their loved ones -- but I doubt if anyone would have done so).
Nobody appeared to be scared.
We didn't "assume the position".
I don't remember seeing the fire trucks out.
We landed normally, taxiied to the gate, and deplaned. Nobody got on his/her knees and kissed terra firma.
The gate agent told us we would be switched to another plane. We took off again 45 minutes later. With everyone from the original flight.

Even if we had been told to "assume the position" I doubt anyone would have panicked or even been alarmed in the way that seems to be the fashion during during precautionary/emergency landings these days.

On another journey during my college years, I was on a West Coast to Europe flight that diverted to YWG after one of the four engines had been shut down owing to an oil leak. Most of the passengers seated near me were senior citizens on a group tour; I saw no signs of distress during the episode (about 1 hour from the P/A annoucement to the landing). The captain had said to expect a harder than normal landing due to a high landing weight and that there would be emergency equipment out.


Why is that when a mechanical diversion or return to field occurs, it seems that
we read of people sobbing, clasping the hands of the stranger seated next to them, violating FCC regs by making farewell calls home?

We have many seasoned flyers, both from within and outside the industry, on this board. Many of you must have experienced "emergency landings".
Are my experiences unusual?
Was the traveling public just more stoic in the eighties?

What are your experiences during such events?
 
PITMTC said:
I believe in being fair. While the first couple of aircraft out of MAE had "issues", the typical ones (and we all know who they are) that are quick to point out those issues, never point out our aircraft problems.So, in the interest of fairness, I will.
It seems that a/c 620 has not flown right since it came out of maintenance in PIT. It has been maintenance ferried to CLT for repairs and stayed there for many shifts while our guys figured out what happened to the aircraft since it had no history of problems before it went into maintanance.
While I have total confidence in the product we put out, I point it out to show that issues can come up on our product as well.
Your statement is far from correct...The Aircrafts problems were documented while in route to MCO ..and from there it was flown to CLT for the required corrective action.