Emergency Landing?

[noflyingfan]

I'm going to implore you all. Please don't make this about the media overblowing things. That happens sometimes here, and those of you who know my (former and still part-time) profession know it really sticks in my craw. So I tend to get defensive, like I am right now. :blush:

But that's not what this question is about, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? :thumbsup:

Anyway...

I heard on the radio this morning that an American Airlines MD80 had to make an emergency landing at O'Hare. (Note: The only reason it was even mentioned at all is because I live in Chicago and they were warning people to call ahead if they were flying out of O'Hare because there might be delays because of the emergency landing).

Anyway, the reason for the emergency landing was that there were problems with the landing gear. It seems whenever I hear about planes making emergency landings, the reason is often landing gear. I know emergency landings are rare and usually not a big deal; I'm just curious if you guys have noticed a lot of them being about landing gear issues, and wondering what is it about landing gear in particular that creates problems. Again, I know these things are nothing major and most of the time no one is hurt. Just curious.

[Billyo]

I'm sure this story was reported outside of the need for a traffic and travel update. [Edit: At least in Chicago]

Nevertheless, I've never had much fear of landing gear problems and these types of stories make me worry even less. That pilot performed a textbook landing and brought that plane in just as smoothly as can be while achieving the best possible outcome. Most landing gear malfuntions end with a similarily favorable result.

Now the potential for falling out of the sky... That's what I worry about! -lol

[Billyo]

The whole story seemed like kind of anticlimatic.
Thankfully, these landing gear malfunctions usually are. It's a testament to how well trained these pilots truly are, and how well aircraft are built nowadays.

I remember a similar situation (I think it was near LA), almost a year ago. Something went wrong with the landing gear and the news media picked up on the situation very early. They were there in time to present live footage of the landing. This situation was a little worse, since the front assembly was down but in an awkward position and wouldn't retract. This pilot also made a textbook landing given the situation.

I think we should all be impressed with how well these pilots are able to execute emergency procedures. We read about them training for it, but this is proof that they really do practice for these events and take their simulator time seriously!

Again, favorable outcomes to events like this actually make me feel more comfortable to fly, not less.

[aerobat]

My impression is that landing gear problems are among the more common reasons for emergency landings. It certainly is true of general aviation. I did an emergency landing (though I used the term 'precautionary' rather than the e-word on the radio) when the landing gear in the C-172RG I was flying would not retract. I could see out the window that it was still down. I tried twice to retract, then reset it for down and locked, got three greens and returned for a landing. ATC gave me priority. I had no problems at all on landing.

A lot of gear emergencies are of this type or more benign (bad position-indicator light). Some do involve a gear-up belly scrape. I have seen the aftermath of a few of those, and one live one (bad road rash, pretzeled prop but people walked away)...they are the most common reason they call out the fire trucks at my homedrome. :)

[Billyo]

I feel your pain John. Not to hi-jack the thread, but the Mav's were on the bad end of some horredous calls this series.

Btw- Who do you have to answer to if you declare an emergency in a non-emergency situation?

What happens during a declared emergency? Does other air traffic have to be re-routed to different runways, fire trucks called, etc.? I can see how this might be expensive and frowned upon if the situation isn't a true emergency. What's the protocol? Better safe than sorry? Or... Don't be the boy who cried wolf too often?




Was it an emergency landing, or did the pilots declare an emergency?

There's a bit of a difference. I'm too bummed out right now (My Mavs lost game 6, and the title), to research the incident.

A lot of the time, when we declare an emergency, we're doing so simply to give ourselves the biggest advantages in dealing with the problem, like:

-Priority handling with ATC. This way, we don't have to wait (when we're ready) to land or divert or do anything else we need to do to keep the pax and plane safe.

We declared an emergency a couple of weeks ago-our flaps (I know, not gear) wouldn't extend fully. So, we declared an emergency with ATC, ran our emergency and abnormal procedures checklists, and landed normally (well, about 15-20 knots faster) but pretty much normally.

Was it an emergency landing? Technically, yes. But not a true EMERGENCY LANDING!!! that requires you to come screaming-meemy back to the field at 700 knots.:D

John "I'll bet Mark Cuban's MAD!" Robinson

P.S. If you were watching the game, you KNOW that last foul on Novitski was a load of...

[noflyingfan]

Thanks, Barb, Sean and John Robinson, for your answers.

[scaredy_cat]

I don't care if it is overblown by the media. Stories like this are reassuring to me, rather than harmful. Granted, they may not always be as much of an "emergency" as the media make them sound, but to me, it would be, and seeing how wonderfully it is handled by the pilots helps. I know that if I was on a plane with some sort of problem, I would panic, but if it was landing gear, I could look back on these cases and feel comforted by the fact that I had "seen" several of these land safely.

[EyesSkyward]

I know that if I was on a plane with some sort of problem, I would panic, but if it was landing gear, I could look back on these cases and feel comforted by the fact that I had "seen" several of these land safely.

Yup. As pilots know, plenty of things can "go wrong" with a plane without really affecting the safety of the flight or the landing that much.

By contrast, many people mistakenly think that the least little problem will result in the plane immediately exploding or something. I suppose that's understandable, given that the cases where a "problem" does lead to disaster are the cases that are most likely to be "newsworthy".

So it's nice to see some of the non-disaster emergencies (which are the vast majority of them) getting some press. It gives people a much more accurate picture of what a "problem" really means, and how fault-tolerant planes actually are.

- Jeff

[scaredy_cat]

So it's nice to see some of the non-disaster emergencies (which are the vast majority of them) getting some press. It gives people a much more accurate picture of what a "problem" really means, and how fault-tolerant planes actually are.

- Jeff

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say! LOL. I'm glad I have Jeff on here to speak for me!

[EyesSkyward]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say! LOL. I'm glad I have Jeff on here to speak for me!

Well if you weren't always wearing those tin-foil dresses, we could just read your thoughts. :tongue:

- Jeff

[scaredy_cat]

Well if you weren't always wearing those tin-foil dresses, we could just read your thoughts. :tongue:

- Jeff


:lol: :lol: I'll keep that in mind!

[noflyingfan]

Well if you weren't always wearing those tin-foil dresses, we could just read your thoughts. :tongue:

- Jeff

Yes, but when she wears that tinfoil dress, she can read your thoughts.

And shame on you. :eek:

[scaredy_cat]

I just noticed in your profile that you work for lawyers. You better keep the tinfoil dress (and hat). You don't want any of that lawyer-thinking getting in your brain. It's doesn't wash out.


:lol: :lol:

On a more serious note regarding this topic... I read an article about the incident and they mentioned the following:

The flight crew then told passengers that the pilot would attempt a negative G maneuver, in hopes of dislodging the landing gear, said Alissa Rizzo, who was returning with her husband, Joe, from a honeymoon in Bora Bora.


Can someone tell me what a negative G maneuver is and what the passengers would experience?

[spleisher]

My guess is the pilot would climb, and then descend relatively rapidly. From a passenger's perspective, you would feel your rear and rise out of your seat, and you would feel pressure on your lap from your seatbelt, which I seincerely hope you would have fastened at that point.

Not sure if you ride roller coasters, but the sensation would likely be similar to the one you feel on a rollercoaster when you come up a hill and go over the crest to go back down another.

[EyesSkyward]

Ah, another example of pilot-speak! A "G" is a measure of gravitational force. (One "G" is normal--what you're feeling right now.)

So a "negative G" maneuver is basically one that makes you feel lighter in your seat. Like when the elevator gets to your floor and stops (but you still have some inertia and "keep going" a bit).

Here's a classic example of a negative G's in action:

Flying Dog (http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/flyingdog.php)

:lol:

- Jeff

[scaredy_cat]

Ok, back home there is a big hill with a "dip" immediately after. If you drive over it at highway speed, you get that "stomach floating" feeling. So I'm assuming its simiar to that but maybe more drastic?


Don't think I would enjoy that on the plane :/

[kari]

Ok, back home there is a big hill with a "dip" immediately after. If you drive over it at highway speed, you get that "stomach floating" feeling. So I'm assuming its simiar to that but maybe more drastic?


Don't think I would enjoy that on the plane :/

Just like that, only more prolonged. Blech ....

[Barb-SAN]

Here's a classic example of a negative G's in action:

Flying Dog (http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/flyingdog.php)

:lol:

- Jeff

:lol: That's pretty funny...I assume the gravitational force returned gradually so that the dog floated back down to the seat? I wonder what he thought was happening? Nothing like a good science experiment! It probably isn't the smartest idea to have an unrestrained animal in the plane however....(for the animal's well-being as well as the passengers...we can hope those pilots put him in a seatbelt/harness after their little filming episode).
Barb-SAN

[aerobat]

English Bunt:

Half an outside loop starting from upright, straight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight) and erect level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal) flight. (The pilot pushes the stick forward and draws a half circle in the sky from the top down.)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Aeros_fig_englishbunt.GIF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aeros_fig_englishbunt.GIF)


I had this demoed for me in a Pitts once...

minus five gs. :) a little much for me eyeballs.

[Barb-SAN]

Do you end up inverted, or is there a twist in there somewhere?

[EyesSkyward]

It probably isn't the smartest idea to have an unrestrained animal in the plane however

You're right. It's a terrible idea.

Here's a slightly better version (http://youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXWwzn368) of the video. It actually looks like the dog plonks down kinda hard at the end. But, it's a carpeted baggage area, and the dog is, well, a dog. They're sturdy. Still, it is a wee bit cruel.

Not so cruel that I don't still laugh my hiney off whenever I watch it though. :angel:

- Jeff