Alaska landing incident SNA

///AMG said:
I agree. Probably not time to crucify the crew when none of us know what happened.
Click to expand...

Yup. No Gryder/Browne Narcissism Hour here with me.

While the what is known, the why will take some detailed materials (what broke), operational (this crew and previous crews actions on landing with this tail number), and Maintenance (work/repair done on any of the left MLG components or any damage history of the parts related to same), collection and analysis work. Which, will take time.

No 1 hour YouTube wrap up here.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I wonder how that went down? Shut it down, Tell everybody to stay seated. Have CFR look for a fuel leak, and if no leak call for stairs?

How would ya'll handle this one?
Click to expand...

I think they handled it well. Have CFR check you out—with no fires or dangers inside the plane stay put. Even with leaking fuel (while CFR monitoring), deplaning by stairs may be the safest option to avoid injuries during an evacuation.
 
juxtapilot said:
I think they handled it well. Have CFR check you out—with no fires or dangers inside the plane stay put. Even with leaking fuel (while CFR monitoring), deplaning by stairs may be the safest option to avoid injuries during an evacuation.
Click to expand...

CFR-wise, we do carry on our vehicles, sealant putty that can stop some small to medium fluid leaks that are accessible and don’t involve a large amount of damage. Things like broken lines and such in accessible areas like the landing gear wells. Larger fuel or fluid leaks, either in leak volume or larger damage areas; we need either keep cooled and flushed (such as fuel or hyd fluid leaking onto hot brakes that have not ignited yet), or place down absorbent materials if a small to medium spill to keep the fluids contained in one area. Or if a large leak or large volume on the ground, wash it away and disperse it. All of the above to ensure that any potential ignition sources are sufficiently cooled and mitigated as such, and secondarily to keep flammable fluids from spreading all over the ground.
 
MikeD said:
CFR-wise, we do carry on our vehicles, sealant putty that can stop some small to medium fluid leaks that are accessible and don’t involve a large amount of damage. Things like broken lines and such in accessible areas like the landing gear wells. Larger fuel or fluid leaks, either in leak volume or larger damage areas; we need either keep cooled and flushed (such as fuel or hyd fluid leaking onto hot brakes that have not ignited yet), or place down absorbent materials if a small to medium spill to keep the fluids contained in one area. Or if a large leak or large volume on the ground, wash it away and disperse it. All of the above to ensure that any potential ignition sources are sufficiently cooled and mitigated as such, and secondarily to keep flammable fluids from spreading all over the ground.
Click to expand...

The capabilities of the modern day CFR is truly impressive. I had a long MX delay a few months ago so got to spend some time checking out all the fancy stuff the CFR guys have on their trucks etc. They were well equipped to handle pretty much anything.
 
juxtapilot said:
The capabilities of the modern day CFR is truly impressive. I had a long MX delay a few months ago so got to spend some time checking out all the fancy stuff the CFR guys have on their trucks etc. They were well equipped to handle pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
Which airport!, out of curiousity?

Capabilities and manning vary, or course, from airport to airport. But there’s some interesting tech out there in both vehicles and equipment, that separates aircraft fire work from regular firefighting. My company’s vehicles are all second hand, but still frontline, vehicles. And our equipment isn’t the absolute latest and greatest toys simply due to high cost; but the proven fairly modern equipment we do use is excellently maintained and trained with, and is still very highly effective.
 
MikeD said:
Which airport!, out of curiousity?

Capabilities and manning vary, or course, from airport to airport. But there’s some interesting tech out there in both vehicles and equipment, that separates aircraft fire work from regular firefighting. My company’s vehicles are all second hand, but still frontline, vehicles. And our equipment isn’t the absolute latest and greatest toys simply due to high cost; but the proven fairly modern equipment we do use is excellently maintained and trained with, and is still very highly effective.
Click to expand...

Yep the tools they have are awesome, but the experience/training/know how is obviously super important too.. I talked to them in GRR, and one of the points they made was to not hesitate to call if I think I might need or want their help. I think their capabilities far exceed what many of us think—which is kind of nice to know but like you said capabilities may vary depending on the airport.

In my 121 world I would be very cautious to command an evacuation as serious injuries are almost certain given our clientele. Of course if you gotta do it, ya gotta do it.. but if CFR can get a handle on whatever is threatening the aircraft, best to trust them and their expertise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
Le what??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
At one time and on the E-jet, the cutback height was 800’ AFE, which (because they didn’t change the thrust reduction altitude in the CDU, because someone didn’t read a manual) caused a master caution to go off because the thrust levers were not in TOGA below thrust reduction height. Pretty silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top