Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AC 2138 "Abnormal" Landing - Theories?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AC 2138 "Abnormal" Landing - Theories?

    Hi.

    Long time lurker, first time poster.

    I recognize I have precious little information in this post. Id still like to ask out of curiosity.

    On Dec 24, our Air Canada flight from SFO - YYZ was delayed. We were told the inbound plane from YYZ was circling the airport because of runway congestion. Then, when it landed, there was a mechanical problem. Those two delays of ~2 total hours put the pilots on the return flight over their FAA limit for flying (fatigue maybe? paraphrasing). So the flight was cancelled. Merry Christmas. The new flight was 9AM on Dec 25.

    The next day, after boarding, the pilot told us over the intercom that there was a issue with the "flight controls" the previous delay, and they canceled the flight for safety reasons. Fair enough. They didn't say if this was the same plane. That did contradict what were were told the previous day.

    The rescheduled flight on Dec 25 - AC 2138 - made good time to YYZ. However we circled the YYZ for quite some time - perhaps 30+ minutes. Then the pilots paged the lead flight attendant to the flight deck. They then made an announcement that there was a problem with one of the 'flight components', and they had to perform an abnormal landing, although it was a common maneuver that they practiced all the time. They said to not be alarmed at the firetrucks and emergency vehicles that would surround the plane on landing. Of course everyone was alarmed due to the stress of a missed Christmas and then this. The flight was full of children

    The landing was stressful, fairly bumpy, but nothing close to dangerous. . It did feel like there was significant lateral movement on landing - a feeling of sliding though - that caused some screams (likely in part because of stress). Once stopped the pilot immediately, and in an authoritative voice announced: "stay seated. do not remove your seat-belts."

    As promised, multiple fire trucks and emergency vehicles surrounded the plane and did spot checks. After 20 minutes, we taxied to the runway and saw more fire personal. We left the plane normally.

    All that gets me to two questions:

    1) From my extremely limited, layperson, description, any wild theories on what happened? That seems to be what this site is all about, after-all
    2) The more reasonable questions is: Is Air Canada required to publicly report issues like this, and if so how can I find out details. Google gave nothing. The similarities between the inbound and outbound flights has me curious.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Originally posted by sanfran View Post
    Hi.

    All that gets me to two questions:

    1) From my extremely limited, layperson, description, any wild theories on what happened? That seems to be what this site is all about, after-all
    2) The more reasonable questions is: Is Air Canada required to publicly report issues like this, and if so how can I find out details. Google gave nothing. The similarities between the inbound and outbound flights has me curious.

    Thanks
    Interesting. avherald.com generally catches most of the reported 'incidents' and if they rolled emergency services it certainly sounds like a reportable 'incident'. But no Air Canada flights there.

    Wild guesses... unsafe gear... flaps issue involving possible loss of hydraulic fluid... loss of a hydraulic system w possible leak involved... in-flight engine shutdown involving possible fire or fuel leak...

    Telling you to remain seated with your seat belts fastened is standard during taxi or whenever you are on an active runway/taxiway.

    Do you recall whether the gear or flaps were out prior to the announcement?

    Comment


    • #3
      They declared an emergency, so it has to be reported. Whether that report will ever make it to Google or not is another question. If there is an investigation, you will find it eventually. If the incident is quickly dismissed as mundane, then probably not.

      As to what might have hapened... a flat tire, an hydraulics malfunction, a stuck flap... it could have been many things. Could you see if the flaps were normally set for landing (fully extended and deflected down about 30 degrees) and if the speedbrakes deployed after touchdown? Do you have an idea (from the flight tracking application commonly found on board) what was the groundspeed at landing? Do you know the callsign or flight number they used for the final flight? (probably it was not the original one since there was another flight with that number that day). Unfortunately I could not find the flight in FlightAware.

      On the other hand, an unsafe gear indication is unlikely. These come accompanied by the command to "brace" which apparently was not your case.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        They declared an emergency, so it has to be reported. Whether that report will ever make it to Google or not is another question. If there is an investigation, you will find it eventually. If the incident is quickly dismissed as mundane, then probably not.

        As to what might have hapened... a flat tire, an hydraulics malfunction, a stuck flap... it could have been many things. Could you see if the flaps were normally set for landing (fully extended and deflected down about 30 degrees) and if the speedbrakes deployed after touchdown? Do you have an idea (from the flight tracking application commonly found on board) what was the groundspeed at landing? Do you know the callsign or flight number they used for the final flight? (probably it was not the original one since there was another flight with that number that day). Unfortunately I could not find the flight in FlightAware.

        On the other hand, an unsafe gear indication is unlikely. These come accompanied by the command to "brace" which apparently was not your case.
        Thanks for the responses guys interesting to read.

        This looks to be the flight: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...700Z/KSFO/CYYZ - AC2138 on Dec 25.
        The graph does show the 30 minutes of circling at 5000 feet at ~200kts.
        Airspeed at landing looks to be ~150kts.

        I should have mentioned the gear. Post announcement, the gear did not come down, or did so so smoothly that I didnt notice it as that was my worry too. So it was obviously down before hand.

        I didn't notice the flaps, our seats were near the back, and I was focused on my daughter

        As for the "remain seated" announcement always happening, yes thats true. In this case it wasnt a "Please remain seated..." announcement. It was a direct, authoritative, command. So it definitely did what was intended - people paid attention. There were no people trying to sneak their luggage out while taxing

        The speedbreaks did deploy.

        Interested in any info you can glean from flight aware!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sanfran View Post
          Interested in any info you can glean from flight aware!
          Not much really. But 150kts does look like a tad too fast for a final approach in a mostly dry 767, especially if there was some headwind component (the speed shown in flightaware is groundspeed, not airspeed, so for example if there was a 10kts headwind component then the airspeed was 160kts). So a problem with the flaps is not out of the question.

          Do you know if...
          ... the plane stopped and was met by the "services" on the runway or if it cleared the runway and stopped in a taxiway?
          ... the plane taxied by itself to the gate or was towed after it stopped and was inspected?

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            You were alive and uninjured when you walked off the aircraft.

            It was therefore a good landing.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              You were alive and uninjured when you walked off the aircraft.

              It was therefore a good landing.

              Correction: Excellent landing...actually it might qualify as perfect...as THE LANDING ITSELF did not result in needed repairs...need to confirm with Evan's department on how that's written.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sanfran View Post
                Once stopped the pilot immediately, and in an authoritative voice announced: "stay seated. do not remove your seat-belts."
                which is perhaps the STUPIDEST part of flying. crew sometimes freak out if someone stands while the plane is moving 5-10 mph on the ground. but while zipping through sometimes bumpy air, it's all good.

                really makes no sense at all from a safety perspective. frankly, i'd rather take my chances with a ground accident than a turbulence accident. i always have my belt on airborne. on the ground? not so much.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  They declared an emergency, so it has to be reported...
                  Not necessarily, depends on the nature of the emergency and/or whether or not the regulatory authority in question requests such a report.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Do you know if...
                    ... the plane stopped and was met by the "services" on the runway or if it cleared the runway and stopped in a taxiway?
                    ... the plane taxied by itself to the gate or was towed after it stopped and was inspected?
                    The plane stopped on the runway, and was surrounded by firetrucks within a few minutes. They inspected for perhaps 10 minutes, then we continue to the gate on our own accord. The firetrucks followed. We met fire personnel at the gate as well (kids wanted pictures with them).

                    Yes, agree completely on the safe/excellent/successful landing. Immensely frustrated to spend Christmas in a hotel with my daughter and not be with family, but obviously landing safely and the skill of the pilots far outweighs any of that frustration.

                    I was somewhat confused about the "keep your seat belt on" command once we had come to a full stop. You would think that in a potential situation with fire and an emergency exit, you would want people prepared and even the few seconds of seatbelts might make a difference. But, of course I have nearly zero knowledge of what really happened.

                    Thanks again for the responses!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sanfran View Post
                      I was somewhat confused about the "keep your seat belt on" command once we had come to a full stop. You would think that in a potential situation with fire and an emergency exit, you would want people prepared and even the few seconds of seatbelts might make a difference. But, of course I have nearly zero knowledge of what really happened.
                      It sounds like the inspection was merely a precaution, with no immediate reason to think an evacuation would ensue. In other words, they expected to taxi shortly after stopping. They can't legally do that with people standing in the aisles, so they probably preferred to keep everybody prepared to resume the taxi to the gate.

                      It really seems like a hydraulics issue to me, if Gabriel is correct about the higher appraoch speed. However, a few days earlier a 787 landed in Toronto after getting a low tire pressure warning and emergency services were considered (it turns out they were busy with another emergency, a suspected in-flight engine fire coming in). So one can only speculate...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        However, a few days earlier a 787 landed in Toronto after getting a low tire pressure warning and emergency services were considered. So one can only speculate...
                        If you were the Captain and you had a low tire pressure warning, would you made an announcement that there was a problem with one of the 'flight components'?

                        (that goes for myself too since I suggested a flat tire as a possibility)

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Once stopped the pilot immediately, and in an authoritative voice announced: "stay seated. do not remove your seat-belts."
                          Very likely the real intention of the pilot was that everybody remained seated and nobody gets proactive enough to initiate an evacuation if some pax thought he might have seen some smoke out there. Seatbelt or not would make no practical difference difference at this point, but "stay seated. do not remove your seat-belts" sounds more convincing than just "stay seated"... and... it is in the regulations whether it makes sense or not: The plane is moving or is in an active runway or taxiway, everybody needs to be seated, buckled up, with the seat backs in vertical position, the trays stowed, and all the cabin items secured (under the seat in front of you, on the overhead bins, etc...).

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            FYI:
                            I emailed Simon from AV-Herald and he responded more or less immediately (impressive). The plane an a problem with the flaps that could not be resolved. He will file it as an incident if/when AC reports it.

                            Interesting! Now time to research the (relative) severity of this, and potential outcomes, etc

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X