American Airlines & Delta make EMERGENCY LANDINGS today!!Bad Accidents...

aloft

New Member
Gotta love the Saab--cockpit looks big enough to be a Boeing! And who'd know the difference?
 

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
I remember when the American Fokker's gear collapsed in DFW. I was on the telephone with my mom sitting in front of the crew lounge window and screeeeeeeeach!

I said, "wait a sec... oh, there's some American Airlines jet whose gear just collapsed so don't freak out if it's on the news"

She says, "Do you have to get off the phone?"

I said, "Nope, doesn't look like a fire!"
 

vipermcg

New Member
That's pretty strange that American would have 2 emergency landings at JFK, within a few days of eachother.
 

gay_pilot18

New Member
Wasn't American Airlines suppossed to have gotten rid of all the FOKKER 100's awhile ago. That's what I heard not too long after 9/11 that they were retiring them from active service?
 

Athena

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

Wasn't American Airlines suppossed to have gotten rid of all the FOKKER 100's awhile ago. That's what I heard not too long after 9/11 that they were retiring them from active service?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there is always some fokker you can't get rid of.
 

Joshua949

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

Wasn't American Airlines suppossed to have gotten rid of all the FOKKER 100's awhile ago. That's what I heard not too long after 9/11 that they were retiring them from active service?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, AA is gettin rid of their Fokker 100's...it's just taking some time right now...they have already gotten rid a number of them..& they're in the process right now of throwing them away...they figured that they can used their MD-80's, 737-800's, & CRJ700's to fill in those routes fine....also...American hasnt decided yet if they're gonna continue to let American Eagle use the CRJ700's or if American is gonna use the CRJ700's...
 

MQAAord

Scheherazade
Staff member
It's too bad AA is getting rid of the F-100. I was the Fokker queen the last summer I was based in ORD, it went really junior so it was all I could hold, but I loved it! A lot of the F/As didn't like that there was no exit in the back, but that never bothered me, the window exits weren't that far away. It reminded me of the ATRs, EMBs and Saabs I worked at Eagle.
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]

Wasn't American Airlines suppossed to have gotten rid of all the FOKKER 100's awhile ago. That's what I heard not too long after 9/11 that they were retiring them from active service?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, there was one flying last night around DCA. I got the traffic warning and so wanted to say, "Roger, I have the Fokker in sight."
 

DanTheMan

New Member
In case anyone is interested...

NTSB Identification: NYC03FA186
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 02, 2003 in Jamaica, NY
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, registration: N454AA
Injuries: 138 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On September 2, 2003, about 1139 eastern daylight time, a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82 (MD-82), N454AA, operated by American Airlines as flight 1048, was substantially damaged during an emergency landing at the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Jamaica, New York, after the flightcrew was unable to extend the nose landing gear. The 2 flightcrew members, 3 flight attendants, and 133 passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the flight that departed the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Dallas, Texas, and was destined for the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey. The scheduled passenger flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 121.

The flightcrew reported that on final approach to EWR, the landing gear was lowered; however, the nose gear indicator red light remained illuminated and the nose landing gear indicator pin did not extend. The flightcrew executed a missed approach and attempted to troubleshoot the problem. After performing emergency checklists, which included the emergency gear extension checklist, the flightcrew diverted to JFK, and performed a low approach over runway 4L, a 11,351-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Ground personnel who observed the airplane stated that the nose gear doors were partially open, however, the nose gear was not visible. The flightcrew subsequently performed an emergency landing to runway 4L, with the nose landing gear retracted. After the airplane came to a stop, the passengers deplaned via the aft door exit.

The airplane touched down about 1/3 of way down the runway. Examination of the runway revealed the airplane's nose contacted the ground about 1 foot to the left of the runway centerline. The nose slid approximately 745 feet, and came to rest 30 feet to the left of the runway centerline. Airbags were utilized to raise the nose of the airplane, and the airplane was subsequently towed to a hangar for further examination.

Examination of the airplane revealed the forward fuselage belly section exhibited severe scrape damage from station 68 to 168. The forward and aft nose landing gear doors also sustained scraping damage. A 6-inch and 9-inch tear was observed in the pressure bulkhead located at station 110. The nose landing gear remained in the wheel well. The nose landing gear spray deflector was fractured near the middle, and found in two sections. The right section of the spray deflector had rotated about 180 degrees, and was found wedged between the nose landing gear and the right side of the wheel well structure. The nose landing gear tire was above the wedged spray deflector section. The left section of the spray deflector was found in it's original position, which was forward, with the nose landing gear retracted.

There was evidence of yellow paint transfer on the right upper surface (aft corner) of the spray deflector. Similar paint marks were observed on the left bottom surface (forward corner) of the spray deflector section. In addition, yellow paints chips were found embedded under a screw head at that location. The distance between the two yellow paint marks was approximately 29 inches. In addition, the right debris deflector, which extended from the side of the spray deflector exhibited evidence of scrape and measured 3-3/32 inches. The left debris deflector exhibited no damaged and measured 3-10/32 inches.

After removing the wedged spray deflector section, the nose landing gear was extended manually. The airplane was then connected to a ground power unit and a satisfactory functional check of the nose landing gear was performed. In addition, the manual gear extension system performed normally.

Ground personnel who participated in the pushback of the airplane from the gate, prior to departure from DFW, reported that the tow bar became disconnected while the airplane was being towed. According to the tow operator:

"...I put the push out tractor in reverse and started towing the airplane backwards. I was looking behind the push out tractor as I was towing the plane. I felt the tractor slip. I wasn't sure what happened, when I turned around and looked at the airplane, I saw the bar had come loose. I informed the captain of the bar breaking loose and told him to park his brakes. I then told my wing walker to get another tow bar. I told the captain we were getting another tow bar and the captain said if everything was OK, he would leave from the spot that they were at. I told [the captain] it looked OK to me...."

The airplane subsequently taxied for takeoff, and departed without incident.

Examination of tow bars used on the MD-82 at JFK, revealed that the distance between the forks measured approximately 30 inches. The tow bars examined at JFK were painted red; however, according to American Airlines, the tow bar used to tow the airplane at DFW was painted yellow.
 

NC_BE300

Well-Known Member
I have a relative that works in maintaintence for a major airline, and has told me that the gears on the F100 aircraft are prone more to failures because they are not as strong as some other gear types, like the 737. The same thing has happened to them. Can someone shine some more light on this?
 

little_cricket

Well-Known Member
"Examination of the runway revealed the airplane's nose contacted the ground about 1 foot to the left of the runway centerline." Boy, its time for recurrent to work on that centerline alignment. JK, Another nice job done by the pilots.
 
Top