AA problem at MAN

[Mictheslik]

An American Airlines flight from Manchester to Chicago called an emergency shortly after taking off and returned there. A friend on another forum who works at Ringway has told me that the airport has just reopened after the jet sat on the taxiway for 2 hours following a reported hydraulics error, and the bursting of two tyres during the landing.

.mic

Edit: The BBC have it up now

[expat]

Not AA's week, they had an MD-80 make an emergency (nose gear unlocked indication)  landing at Miami airport yesterday.......................Sky News crossed to Fox and we had the usual pillocks commentating, I almost put a chair through my TV.

Matt

[Celtman]

Expect some links to pictures on a.net in the next few days. I'm lucky that my dad works in the tower in MAN, he was on ground control at the time, but when the aircraft was on final, he went up to the tower and got some shots. I'll post links once they are up.

Apparently he came in "Way too fast", couldn't deploy full flaps, and the undercarriage doors were not locked. Landed 1/3 of the way down the runway, and looked like he would not stop. Reverse thrust was used until at a standstill (not the 60knts recommended).

Also, they dumped fuel on return to MAN. The problem occured over southern Scotland.

Once again, I'll post links to the pics once they are up.

Edit: Flights were diverted to Liverpool. The airport was closed for over 2 hours (apparently nearer 3) as the aircraft was stuck on the runway. It was not seven like the BBC said, apparently more like 20-30 flights. Note: Flights diverted because 2nd runway is also closed until March for Maintainece.

From BBC:

"The captain of flight AA55 could have continued to Chicago but decided to return to Manchester,"

False. Full stop. He could not have continued to Chicago, as they did not know if the hydraulic leak had caused any more problems. I don't think they would have decalred a "Mayday" over the radio if they could continue to Chicago......

"But it has to be said this is a fairly routine and common problem."

No. It's not........ (I'm sure you all know that anyway). Not every day an aircraft's gear doors are stuck down, and the brakes don't work properly....

The reason the plane could not be towed from the runway was that the brakes had fused as the backup system was still useable, not just because of burst tyres.

The noise of the brakes could be heard from the tower according to my reliable source (my dad )

Must be pertty serious if the first words out of a controlers mouth when a plane touches down is "Oh Sh!t"

[expat]

Don't quite understand what you have written here:

The reason the plane could not be towed from the runway was that the brakes had fused as the backup system was still useable, not just because of burst tyres.


Can you elaborate?

Matt

[Celtman]

Don't quite understand what you have written here:
The reason the plane could not be towed from the runway was that the brakes had fused as the backup system was still useable, not just because of burst tyres.

Plane could not be towed as the brakes had essentially fused to the undercarriage, due to the extreme heat they created, as they were used at full capacity for the entire length the plane travelled after touchdown.
What I meant by the backup system was that the brakes are hydraulic powered, but worked after a hydraulic failure as they have a back-up system that worked.
That is the main reason they could not move the plane. The brakes had fused.

[expat]

I suspect the reason he landed so fast was not to the flaps no being deployed, but because leading edge flaps and slat where not deployed. If the hyd leak was so bad that flap/slat function was effected then the flaps would have been driven out by Alt Flap function. The flaps can be driven to 25, but (I am not 100% here) the leading edge devices remain in (as they do on the 737-800). The flaps are powered by the left hand hyd system and backed up by the right system via the PTU. The left and right systems power there respective thrust reverser's. If the aircraft has a bad leak in the left system then the flaps would have been driven out as I said and quite possibly the right hand thrust reverser only was used as the other would have also been INOP (you can set one reverser INOP as a normal maint practice and still use the other) and observers possibly would not have seen the left hand side (we have only seen pictures of the aircraft from the right hand side). Being as he would have no leading edge devices, landing speed would have been faster. Normal Brakes are also are also left system, so standby brakes would have been used. This may explain why thrust reverse was used until a full stop, however, this is only speculation.

Matt

[expat]

Don't quite understand what you have written here:
The reason the plane could not be towed from the runway was that the brakes had fused as the backup system was still useable, not just because of burst tyres.

Plane could not be towed as the brakes had essentially fused to the undercarriage, due to the extreme heat they created, as they were used at full capacity for the entire length the plane travelled after touchdown.
What I meant by the backup system was that the brakes are hydraulic powered, but worked after a hydraulic failure as they have a back-up system that worked.
That is the main reason they could not move the plane. The brakes had fused.

As I suspected, if he was using standby brakes (backup) then the left hydraulic system had failed.

Matt

[Celtman]

One image of the 767 after landing, fresh off the email from my dad

Taken from the tower at MAN:

     

[C]

What I meant by the backup system was that the brakes are hydraulic powered, but worked after a hydraulic failure as they have a back-up system that worked.
That is the main reason they could not move the plane. The brakes had fused.

Also, would one want to be in an aeroplane with brakes which are at 100's of *C with a hydraulic problem/leak of some kind (already knowing that two of the tyres had burst/deflated - potentially due to heat)? Probably not - and considering someone would need to be in it to tow it...

...and at the configuration (hence speed) it landed, they'd be "hot" for a long time.

[expat]

What I meant by the backup system was that the brakes are hydraulic powered, but worked after a hydraulic failure as they have a back-up system that worked.
That is the main reason they could not move the plane. The brakes had fused.

Also, would one want to be in an aeroplane with brakes which are at 100's of *C with a hydraulic problem/leak of some kind (already knowing that two of the tyres had burst/deflated - potentially due to heat)? Probably not - and considering someone would need to be in it to tow it...

...and at the configuration (hence speed) it landed, they'd be "hot" for a long time.

I don't know the 757 systems enough, but looking at the picture and lack of skid marks I would suspect that the tyres acted just like they should and deflated rather than burst. The speed rating of the tyre would be around 250mph, faster than the landing speed. Anti skid appears to have worked (no skid marks). The fuse plugs in the wheel rims melted as they should when excess heat is generated by the brakes to prevent the tyres from bursting exploding. When one goes off, if you are near, death generally follows with significant aircraft damage.


Matt

[C]

Also, would one want to be in an aeroplane with brakes which are at 100's of *C with a hydraulic problem/leak of some kind (already knowing that two of the tyres had burst/deflated - potentially due to heat)? Probably not - and considering someone would need to be in it to tow it...

...and at the configuration (hence speed) it landed, they'd be "hot" for a long time.

I don't know the 757 systems enough, but looking at the picture and lack of skid marks I would suspect that the tyres acted just like they should and deflated rather than burst. The speed rating of the tyre would be around 250mph, faster than the landing speed. Anti skid appears to have worked (no skid marks). The fuse plugs in the wheel rims melted as they should when excess heat is generated by the brakes to prevent the tyres from bursting exploding. When one goes off, if you are near, death generally follows with significant aircraft damage.


Matt

Those were my thoughts that it was probably deflation rather than bursting. Either way, as you say, you don't want to be anywhere near them...

[Celtman]

News from MAN tower:

You're right, the tyres did deflate, not burst

Also, the fire crews wanted to cool the brakes, but couldn't due to the excessive heat..... I guess the water/foam would just explode

[expat]

News from MAN tower:

You're right, the tyres did deflate, not burst

Also, the fire crews wanted to cool the brakes, but couldn't due to the excessive heat..... I guess the water/foam would just explode

If you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to cool brakes that have overheated, the best way is with CO2 but NOT directly onto the brakes. You "bounce" the CO2 of the ground first i.e point the extinguisher nozzle at the ground about five to ten metres up wind of the gear and then let the cloud "waft" down over the brakes. However, I would advise the following, hot brakes..............run away..........quickly.

Matt

[C]

If you are ever in the unfortunate situation of having to cool brakes that have overheated, the best way is with CO2 but NOT directly onto the brakes. You "bounce" the CO2 of the ground first i.e point the extinguisher nozzle at the ground about five to ten metres up wind of the gear and then let the cloud "waft" down over the brakes. However, I would advise the following, hot brakes..............run away..........quickly.

Matt

Yep, just leave 'em be!

[pepper_airborne]

Indeed, there is no reason killing yourself over a few bits of metal whilst it isnt a emergency.

Interesting story too see this all!