EI110 JFK SNN

The_Wanderer

Looks like EI110 could be in trouble. Circling off Long Island shortly after takeoff.

pajoguy

FR24

The_Wanderer

pajoguy wrote: »

FR24

Thanks. Am on mobile and wasn't giving me a option to post a screens hot. However it is now!

mickdw

Looks like it's back on the ground in jfk

highlydebased

Hydraulic issue

https://twitter.com/aquamanatee/status/648656000027860992

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/09/28/aerlingus-flight-returned/

Noxegon

Calm, cool, and collected.

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/ein11ea-hydraulic-failure/

Muppet Man

Mother in law was on it... She's already asleep in her hotel... Ready for another unplanned day of shopping no doubt.

Seanie_H

Small brake fire after landing heavy apparently.

Tom Dunne

Badly written article on it here:

http://abc7ny.com/travel/aer-lingus-flight-experiences-fire-in-brakes-upon-emergency-landing-at-jfk-airport/1007055/

AndyBoBandy

Sounds like training kicked in and the crew handled the situation expertly.

kub

Does that suggest they had no flaps upon landing?

eusap

The news video on Independent.ie is comical

vicwatson

Using a 737 on this route? According to indo article.

EDIT They must be reading this thread as theyve amended the website to show 757 !!

AndyBoBandy

kub wrote: »

Does that suggest they had no flaps upon landing?

Thats what they are saying, although the flaps appear to be extended somewhat in the picture above, although they look like they are set for take off, so perhaps they couldn't be retracted initially, and also extended further for approach/landing

flanzer

eusap wrote: »

The news video on Independent.ie is comical

Yeah, looks like a sketch straight from Family Guy! 'Hi, I'm Tom Tucker', 'Over to Tricia Takanawa in JFK', ' Back to you Tom'. The melodramatics of the video is hilarious

Anyway, kudos and credit to the crew as always. Sounds like a job well done

Skuxx

I can't wait for the DailyMail to publish an article on this!

AndyBoBandy

Skuxx wrote: »

I can't wait for the DailyMail to publish an article on this!

and still blame Ryanair.

Skuxx

I noticed they mentioned problems with flaps in the various articles I've read, presumably due to the hydraulic failure, does the 757 not have an option to retract/ extent flaps electrically like in the 737?

ElNino

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252914/Hydraulic-issues-Aer-Lingus-flight-bound-Ireland-causes-fire-erupt-plane-s-landing-gear-compartment-emergency-landing-JFK.html

A very mild article for the DM. Nothing about the "terrifying ordeal" that the passengers endured.

The reason the flaps look like they are down when it's stopped on the ground is the lack of hydraulic fluid, gravity will drop them down as there is no pressure to keep them up.

cowboyBuilder

I heard a bit of the audio on Pat Kenny - very calm and collected.

Someone posted a link to an ATC forum that says has the audio, but seems to be gone now ?

edit http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/ein11ea-hydraulic-failure/

says attached audio but there is none ..

b757

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I heard a bit of the audio on Pat Kenny - very calm and collected.

Someone posted a link to an ATC forum that says has the audio, but seems to be gone now ?

edit http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/ein11ea-hydraulic-failure/

says attached audio but there is none ..

You need to sign in to view.

AndyBoBandy

ElNino wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252914/Hydraulic-issues-Aer-Lingus-flight-bound-Ireland-causes-fire-erupt-plane-s-landing-gear-compartment-emergency-landing-JFK.html

A very mild article for the DM. Nothing about the "terrifying ordeal" that the passengers endured.

Some epic comments though stating that it was an Airbus! and for the DM to 'check it's facts'

The article doesn't help though with a picture of an AL A320

Dardania

ElNino wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252914/Hydraulic-issues-Aer-Lingus-flight-bound-Ireland-causes-fire-erupt-plane-s-landing-gear-compartment-emergency-landing-JFK.html

A very mild article for the DM. Nothing about the "terrifying ordeal" that the passengers endured.

Pretty informative infact.

My eyes hurt after looking at the comments...

cowboyBuilder

My god those comments are horrific

Bussywussy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reason the flaps look like they are down when it's stopped on the ground is the lack of hydraulic fluid, gravity will drop them down as there is no pressure to keep them up.

That doesn't happen with those flaps.only aircraft I can think where that happens is the inboard L/E Krueger flaps on a 737

djsim101

Glad everyone arrived safely and it was a happy ending.


However, this got me thinking of a few questions I would like to ask which I am sure the experts here would have an idea.


1)What happens to this plane now and how long will it be out of action for? I presume it will be transferred to a local hanger to be repaired, would Aer Lingus mechanics fly over to oversee the repairs or would they out-source the work?


2) What kind of safety checks would the aircraft go through before it would be allowed to fly commercially again? Would it need to go through an entire flight check or just the problem \ system areas?


3) Does the Carrier foot the repair bills or would be the manufacture (if it turns out to be a fault with a part rather than a maintenance issue?


Thanks lads,

ElNino

djsim101 wrote: »

Glad everyone arrived safely and it was a happy ending.


However, this got me thinking of a few questions I would like to ask which I am sure the experts here would have an idea.


1)What happens to this plane now and how long will it be out of action for? I presume it will be transferred to a local hanger to be repaired, would Aer Lingus mechanics fly over to oversee the repairs or would they out-source the work?


2) What kind of safety checks would the aircraft go through before it would be allowed to fly commercially again? Would it need to go through an entire flight check or just the problem \ system areas?


3) Does the Carrier foot the repair bills or would be the manufacture (if it turns out to be a fault with a part rather than a maintenance issue?


Thanks lads,

Good questions but there is another party involved as the 757 was wet leased from Air Contractors. Maybe someone more knowledgeable on here will know whether the operator or owner are usually responsible for repairs on wet leases.

ProfessorPlum

The aircraft isn't wet leased - it's operated by ACL, they will be responsible for all repairs etc.

duskyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason the flaps look like they are down when it's stopped on the ground is the lack of hydraulic fluid, gravity will drop them down as there is no pressure to keep them up.

What a load of sh one t. Sorry to be so direct but hog wash and me don't see eye to eye. ��

If the flaps are not working due hydraulic failure, alternate flap is used which is powered by electric servo motors. The flaps won't move due gravity after landing.

Look up smart cockpit , trawl up b757 manuals and root through to the section on flight controls, sub section flaps.

mr.anonymous

Gear doors look open in the picture. Does that suggest a gravity extension?

Air Contractors will pay. There's likely maintenance available at jfk. They'll repair the fault. There's also a check that has to be done after an overweight landing AFAIK.

McSween

I'm on that flight tonight. I wonder what replacement aircraft we will get?

roundymac

Possibly a leased in bird. There is no SNN-JFK-SNN on a tuesday. Could be OMNI.

calibratedtool

The aircraft will operate this evening JFK-SNN.
The landing wasn't above MLW.
SNN-JFK-SNN operates some Tuesdays (when no planned A check in SNN).

JCX BXC

roundymac wrote: »

Possibly a leased in bird. There is no SNN-JFK-SNN on a tuesday. Could be OMNI.

First of all, the flight left on a Monday from JFK,
Second of all, there is occasionally flights on a Tuesday, today for example there was one scheduled.

They haven't leased in anyway BTW, today's flight was cancelled.

highlydebased

Todays JFK pax were sent mostly via LHR and Boston seemingly

fr336

highlydebased wrote: »

Todays JFK pax were sent mostly via LHR and Boston seemingly

Yes saw happy pax thanking EI for this on Twitter.

McSween

fr336 wrote: »

Yes saw happy pax thanking EI for this on Twitter.

Ei LBR is at the gate.

aviator7

djsim101 wrote: »

Glad everyone arrived safely and it was a happy ending.


However, this got me thinking of a few questions I would like to ask which I am sure the experts here would have an idea.


1)What happens to this plane now and how long will it be out of action for? I presume it will be transferred to a local hanger to be repaired, would Aer Lingus mechanics fly over to oversee the repairs or would they out-source the work?


2) What kind of safety checks would the aircraft go through before it would be allowed to fly commercially again? Would it need to go through an entire flight check or just the problem \ system areas?


3) Does the Carrier foot the repair bills or would be the manufacture (if it turns out to be a fault with a part rather than a maintenance issue?


Thanks lads,

1) Air contractors will take care of it. Because they are an ETOPS operation, they will have Engineers over there anyway. But airlines often fly over their own guys from the home base to help out with these things and speed things up. If it's a big problem they might need to send over tooling and spares that wouldn't usually be kept at an outstation. Yes if a hangar is needed, normally airlines will rent out space from other operators. Common enough to see a foreign carrier in the Aer Lingus hangar in Dublin.

2) Usually the manufacturer of the plane will get involved in situations like this to give guidance. They will recommend the action to be taken if there isn't details in the maintenance manual. Planes very rarely go for test flights. If you lose a hydraulic system the cause is usually pretty obvious once an engineer has a look around. If it was actually a fire, I'm sure Boeings Engineers will be involved.

3) Depends. There are different warranties for different parts. Most components aren't made by the manufacturer of the plane. I'm not sure about Boeing, but I know on most A320's the brake units are made by Bugatti for example. I don't know much more about the in's and out's of warranties. There are people employed specifically for warranty claims in airlines. Someone else might be able to help you out with that question.

goingnowhere

EI-LBR is go for tonight, in the queue to depart 22R JFK

JCX BXC

goingnowhere wrote: »

EI-LBR is go for tonight, in the queue to depart 22R JFK

Off now.

AGC

Was on EI104 landing yesterday morning in Dublin and a lot of pax from Shannon flight on that, think once they realised that it was the same aircraft (ie B757 operating the JFK-SNN sector) they were happy to come to Dublin!

JCX BXC

AGC wrote: »

, think once they realised it was the same aircraft they were happy to come to Dublin!

I don't understand what you mean here.

AGC

Carnacalla wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean here.

They didn't want to be on the same aircraft that had issues less than 24 hours earlier

JCX BXC

AGC wrote: »

They didn't want to be on the same aircraft that had issues less than 24 hours earlier

Oh you mean once they realised that the next flight from.JFK-SNN was the same aircraft?

AGC

Carnacalla wrote: »

Oh you mean once they realised that the next flight from.JFK-SNN was the same aircraft?

Yes

MuffinsDa

Listened to the ATC from a post 2, great work from the pilots.

Just a question in regards to communication style, and don't get me wrong I'm have no experience in flying commercially or personally, just a bystander (so pilots don't get your knickers in a twist it's an innocent question):

One of the crew (was it FO?) -the one that sounded like he is from West Cork- sounded a little bit unassertive in his communications. For example towards the end he was asking "what would be your views on disembarking passengers here rather than taxiing"... and a few other similar Irish nicenesses (Would you mind, would it be possible, etc). Do you think he could be a little bit more assertive and direct? i.e. you either think you need to evacuate on the runway for safety reasons, in which case you directly ask it, or you think it's ok to be towed. The communication style sounded slightly vague!

I could be completely wrong in my assessment of course, I have no experience in this area, so please enlighten me if I am wrong.

Growler!!!

I haven't listerd to the liveatc playback but did he say evacuate or disembark?
Evacuate is down the slides similar to the BA in Vegas and is an Emergency.
Or was it disembark, which would mean bring aircraft steps and busses onto the runway.


Btw is there any way to listen to the playback without signing up to the liveatc site?

MuffinsDa

Here you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByUDC0-ALTS6NXhESHROZDVzdDg/view?usp=sharing

Good point. As far as I can make it, at the end one of the flight crew said to emergency services: "No we have no usual indications up here. I just wanted to check, from your point of view, the danger of fire appears to be gone now from the landing grear[?], Ok I'm sure the brakes were a bit hotter than normal on Landing because we were ... we had to land faster than normal.. do you...it's possible that we mightn't be able to taxi at all from here? would, would you think that as a possibility... runway is that it"

emergency services: "We are all good down here as far as the fire's been extinguished. We're gonna hook up the push back truck ... disembark the passengers here and load them onto buses".

to me the bit highlighted above sounded a bit vague - wasn't clear if it was a question, a request or information. But maybe it was clear enough to those who mattered.

Tenger

Maybe the airfield info didn't have clear procedures for disembarking pax on a runway or a taxiway? EI crew asking what the JFK Ops preferred option would be.
With hot (and possibly fire damaged) brakes the aircraft may not be capable of taxiing into a stand.
EDIT: listened to the link above and the flight crew told JFK before approach that they would not be able to vacate the runway once they stopped. And when queried they asked for emergency vehicles to be on hand

JFK may have had a preference to tow it onstand to disembark, or tow it to a taxiway, or just send airstairs out to the aircraft on the runway.
No question at all that evacuation would happen as soon as the aircraft is safely stopped, regardless of where on the airfiled it is. Disembarking post inflight incident is less clear cut.

Growler!!!

Thanks for the link. I'll get a chance later to listen to it all. Caught the last 5 mins or so. Seemed more to be trying to figure out what the fire crew were saying as they made no attempt to try and slow down their accents!