American Airlines MD-80 Returns to DFW After Landing Gear Would Not Retract
American Airlines MD-80
An American Airlines MD-80 jet bound for St. Louis (STL) on Tuesday morning had to return to Dallas Ft. Worth International (DFW) when the landing gear would not retract.
American Flight 1862 was 10 minutes in to its flight to Lambert St. Louis International when pilots turned around and made a safe emergency landing at DFW. But not before passengers had to assume the ‘brace’ position.
ABC News reports:
“When they said assume the position, it was scary,” passenger Elaine Krieger said.
As passengers reflected on the incident, some were left to wonder whether the landing-gear concern was real, well aware of the airline’s recent trouble with labor.
“Some people are cheering as we landed, and the rest of us are thinking, ‘Is this a scenario they created, or was it real?’” passenger Jeff Estes said. “Are they really heroes, or are they guys just creating a job action?”
The gear worked normally on landing. The cause is being investigated.
This latest incident comes on the heels of American temporarily grounding 47 planes to check for loose seats.
Image: Flickr [bribri]
Category: Airnation
OK Mr. Skip Whitrock, FAA AMR CMU. Lets go and violate those nasty pilots for returning to DFW. We all know that the MD-80 has a gear extended speed, or maybe you don’t. Oh well, it does (probably not enough fuel to make it with gear hanging down). Then when it came up short you could have violated the crews for not figuring adequate fuel reserves. You can increase surveillance on the crews not knowing how to retract the landing gear. Go get um cowboy.
EdJeszka
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector, Retired
FWA, FAA Whistleblower Alliance
The incident aircraft (N590AA) was delivered new to AA in 1991. The flight took off at 8:03am, reached 10,000ft at 8:07am and maintained 10,000ft until the descent at 8:16am, before eventually landing at 8:26am. Nothing about the data looks unusual for the incident.
Strangely enough, the aircraft was back in the air this afternoon and has flown three flights since then. So whatever the issue was, it wasn’t complicated.
I should note that the aircraft was an MD83.
Also, the aircraft never reached a speed higher than 156 knots (295 mph). Usually an MD80 will cruise at 10,000ft at or around 250 knots (280 mph), so it appears the crew was operating below VLE with gear down. No indication they were doing anything wrong that i can see…
Chris,
Thanks. VLE, to the casual observer, is the speed at which the aircraft can be safely operated with the landing gear extended. At 156k, the issue of continuing on to STL would have become fuel on board and appropriate IFR reserves. The crew did exactly what they are trained to do and the passengers benefited from that expertise. The 250k restriction is regulatory unless authorized by ATC to deviate. But in any case, AA should give this crew appropriate accolades for taking an unusual situation and conducting themselves IAW procedures and safely resolve the inflight emergency.
Again, the crew did what they are supposed to do, ignoring the FAA, Mr. Whitrock, and their ludicrous threats to focus surveillance on the flight crews actions for maintenance related holds and returns. Hold your ground flight crews, the lives of the passengers depend on your judgement and willingness to maintain a safe opperation, regardless of the FAA AMR CMU and Mr. Whitrock, Mr. Huerta, Mr. Foushee, Mrs. Gilligan and Mr. Allen.
Agreed, Ed! For the 600 mile flight that ordinarily takes 1 hour and 20 minutes cruising at 37,000ft at 500mph, this crew NEVER would have been able to make the entire journey limited at 200kts and 10,000ft. They definitely wouldn’t have enough fuel, nor would any of those passengers appreciate the long flight duration!
Chris,
Just a quick comment. When the fuel runs out it usually gets real quiet and the ground comes up pretty quickly. Not too sure the passengers would have appreciated that very much either. Again, good call flight crew.
Good point! They wouldn’t want to end up like the crew of Southern 242- losing both engines and crash landing on a back road…
Chris,
Why do you think that the FAA AMR CMU would come out and make veiled threats against the flight crews for being safe? As a Retired Safety Inspector it was one of my greatest fear that a crew would deliberately ignore a safety issue that they thought was not “important” and take a flight anticipating that they could get it fixed at another destination down the line. This mentality existed in years gone by. I am not only referring to FAR Part 121, but also in 135 as well as 91. The heavy metal operates primarily in 121 but the culture to overlook a maintenance issue because of “get-home-itis” or the company bottom line has had devastating results.
What is totally unacceptable is for the FAA to take its present position in warning or threatening the flight crews that additional surveillance would take place if crews delayed departures for maintenance issues. Take for example the seat track and mounting hardware fiasco. Do you think the pilots have a right to weigh the safety of three passengers in loose seats (with reduced survivability in an emergency)against the standard survivability potential of three folks in secure seats? While the airplane is functioning properly, and the crew can make a return or emergency landing under controlled conditions, there can be no doubt as to what decision should be made. It would be a gross miscarriage of responsibility of the crew and the airlines to allow the flight to continue to its destination, making a crap shoot out of the outcome.
When the FAA assigns leadership responsibility to those with limited or no leadership qualities, the outcome appears to continuously result in acts verging on dereliction of duty and malfeasance. It would take a new Administrator, as Mr. Huerta has no aviation background to speak of, nor do many within his present hierarchy. With failed leadership comes failed and deadly consequences. I said before, the aviation industry is a far cry from highway and train transportation that the present administration is geared for, unfortunately.
I agree completely. I don’t understand how the FAA can threaten AA’s pilots nor suggest that they have any authority to intervene. Can they “actually” enforce and punish the pilots as they’re threatening to? Or is it simply an idol threat?
The FAA, in spite of the “Pilot’s Bill of Rights” (which they have chosen to violate already even though it is less than two months old)can increase oversight at their discretion. They do have a responsibility to do just that when an airline experiences labor or financial issues. This must be done to insure safety. Unfortunately this has become a weapon in the case of AA.
A pilot should never be in fear of some aberrant inspector making a subjective decision resulting in enforcement action simply because he has decided that a pilot is taxiing a large aircraft full of passengers at too slow a pace. The inspector needs to see who is paying his salary and it will show the U.S. Treasury, not AA.
Every pilot knows that once the FAA decides to crucify you, you are toast. If they don’t have a case they simply set about making one up. Then the Appeal goes to NTSB ALJ who are such a disappointment in their total inability to apply justice. One, which I know of personally, stated that “the accused have a reason to lie, they were accused by the FAA”. And everyone in aviation knows that the FAA would NEVER tell a falsehood, falsify a record or conduct themselves unethically (Check BHM FSDO or FAA-AAE).
So Senator Inhofe attempted to correct some of these issues by submitting his version of what has become a “Pilot’s Bill of Rights”. It is really PL 112-153 and it does provide some protection from an agency and process that has been used as a weapon for years. The abuses go back to Bob Hoover and before. The FAA abuse involved the Senator himself and this was the motivation for the resultant public law. Many FAA pending enforcement actions were immediately canceled. Only the FAA can tell you how many but they probably wouldn’t. That indication is that they were probably not legitimate to begin with. Tough when you get caught with your pants down.
All that being said, Mr. Whitrock of the AMR CMU, as an FAA inspector, has stepped into stuff that has gotten all over his shoes. His legitimate oversight responsibility may have become obscured by his self aggrandizement and misunderstanding of his legitimate authority.
Probably more than you wanted to hear but when the door is opened by an inspector and his claim to his 15 minutes of fame, you must evaluate his actual effect on aviation safety. Was it positive or negative. In this case it appears he has crossed the line by his comments and veiled threats and may, in fact, have jeopardized aviation safety in a myriad of ways. Maybe he just wasn’t bright enough to figure that out yet. I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell flight crews not to report something they feel is a safety of flight issue or a squawk unable to be MEL’d. The regulations are clear. It is the pilot’s responsibility to make the determination if an aircraft is airworthy. They have guidance to help in that and various procedures to guide them in the process that needs to be followed. That would be FAR’s as well as Airline Manuals that the FAA has accepted or approved. The end goal is to provide every passenger with the best and highest level of aviation safety for every flight. Too bad old Skip thinks that needs to be changed. Dollars are not the bottom line in aviation. Safety must be.