AA MD-80 Engine Fails at LGA, Drops Parts in College Point

[Matt Molnar]

According to news reports, an American Airlines MD-80 taking off from LaGuardia this morning suffered an uncontained engine failure, dropping shrapnel on a house in College Point.

The #2 engine aboard flight 309, enroute to Chicago O'Hare, failed during takeoff. WCBS reports parts fell onto the roof of 31-99 123rd St in College Point, though this address does not exist in Google Maps.

The plane landed safely at JFK and no one was injured. An AA spokeswoman says birds were not to blame.

[Vidiot]

NYT blog post, which will most likely be updated:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ng-at-jfk/ (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-jfk/)

Anyone know the tail number?

[moose135]

Newsday story at: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-ny ... 9644.story (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-nyplan0312,0,6209644.story)


Metal debris fell from a plane shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport Wednesday morning, landing on a building in Queens and forcing an emergency landing at Kennedy Airport, authorities said.

The plane, Chicago-bound American Airlines Flight 309, an MD-80 aircraft carrying 88 passengers and crew members, experienced engine trouble right after its 8:15 a.m takeoff, the Port Authority said.

As it crossed Flushing Bay, debris fell from the plane. Police said it landed on a building at the south end of 123rd Street, in College Point. The Port Authority said it landed on the street. PA spokesman Pasquale DiFulco said police and other PA workers were sent to the scene to secure the debris until the FAA arrived. There were no injuries.

The plane made an emergency landing minutes later at Kennedy. The cause of the engine trouble was not immediately clear, but one source said birds did not play a role

Also, from The Aviation Herald: http://avherald.com/h?article=41650f96&opt=0


The FAA reported, that the engine failure was uncontained, debris off the engine fell on building 25-99 123rd Street in New York City's district Jamaica, Queens near College Point Boulevard. The largest section of the debris is said to be 4 feet (approx. 1 meter). Debris also feel onto a car and damaged it. The fuselage of the airplane has been pierced by the shrapnel released by the engine as well.

[Speedbird1]

Also, the AAL 309 MD 83 was routed over Long Island Sound near the CT. border then turned-around to JFK near Sands Pt and Glen Head. It arrived safely on Rwy 22R (longer runway).

[PhilDernerJr]

The parts landed on a roof of a business one block west of the College Point Home Depot, a building formerly home to the stabbing-friendly club "Metropolis".

I just checked it out...all the local news vans represented, closing up shop for the day.

[USAF Pilot 07]

An AA spokeswoman says birds were not to blame.


Haha

[DHG750R]

The Queens Boro president is getting in the mix ..Obviously having not a clue..

http://wcbstv.com/local/engine.failure. ... 56247.html (http://wcbstv.com/local/engine.failure.nyc.2.956247.html)


Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said she's also seen this before, but said she's had enough and isn't buying the line that machines sometimes fail.
"There's no excuse, no excuse. They've got to do whatever is necessary to make sure whatever is put in that sky is safe," she told CBS 2.

[PhilDernerJr]

Helen Marshall is one of the worst politicians I've ever seen in my life.

[T-Bird76]

The Queens Boro president is getting in the mix ..Obviously having not a clue..

http://wcbstv.com/local/engine.failure. ... 56247.html (http://wcbstv.com/local/engine.failure.nyc.2.956247.html)


Queens Borough President Helen Marshall said she's also seen this before, but said she's had enough and isn't buying the line that machines sometimes fail.
"There's no excuse, no excuse. They've got to do whatever is necessary to make sure whatever is put in that sky is safe," she told CBS 2.

What a moron... Someone should ask her if her car has ever broken down before. She sounds like she's from the Chuck Schumer School of "there's a camera let me say something useless."

[Matt Molnar]

Marshall was probably talking out of her buttcrack when she said that, but she actually might not be off base, believe it or not. Sounds like this engine had some serious issues and they were "waiting for parts" but kept flying it anyway.

WSJ:

Maintenance Was Overdue on Jet Engine (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682601646404111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
An American Airlines jet that suffered an engine failure and made an emergency landing Wednesday morning at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport had a history of engine problems and hadn't received maintenance checks slated to occur days before the incident, according to people familiar with the details.

The twin-engine jetliner, a McDonnel Douglas MD-80 series aircraft, was climbing through about 1,300 feet after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport on its way to Chicago when its right engine suffered a major turbine failure and the pilots opted to divert. None of the 88 passengers and five crew members sustained injuries.

According to American's maintenance records, these people said, the plane was written up by mechanics a few days ago and scheduled for follow-up work because of a string of earlier engine troubles. Over several weeks, pilots reported at least four separate engine problems or discrepancies in fuel usage between the engines, these people said. Parts were ordered last weekend, according to one person familiar with the details, but for various reasons the work was delayed and the engine checks weren't done prior to Wednesday's incident. [Full Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682601646404111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)]

[Gerard]

Marshall was probably talking out of her buttcrack when she said that, but she actually might not be off base, believe it or not. Sounds like this engine had some serious issues and they were "waiting for parts" but kept flying it anyway.

WSJ:

Maintenance Was Overdue on Jet Engine (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682601646404111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
An American Airlines jet that suffered an engine failure and made an emergency landing Wednesday morning at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport had a history of engine problems and hadn't received maintenance checks slated to occur days before the incident, according to people familiar with the details.

The twin-engine jetliner, a McDonnel Douglas MD-80 series aircraft, was climbing through about 1,300 feet after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport on its way to Chicago when its right engine suffered a major turbine failure and the pilots opted to divert. None of the 88 passengers and five crew members sustained injuries.

According to American's maintenance records, these people said, the plane was written up by mechanics a few days ago and scheduled for follow-up work because of a string of earlier engine troubles. Over several weeks, pilots reported at least four separate engine problems or discrepancies in fuel usage between the engines, these people said. Parts were ordered last weekend, according to one person familiar with the details, but for various reasons the work was delayed and the engine checks weren't done prior to Wednesday's incident. [Full Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682601646404111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)]

Wow if that is true that is totally reckless I believe heads will roll on this one especially once it starts rolling in the media.

[LGA777]

I am a little late chiming in on this one. Personally I believe the crew and passengers of AA 309 where very fortunate yesterday. I was not at work but in the last year I have witnessed at least 100 AA MD80 departures off 13 at LGA that used at least 6500 feet of the 7000 foot runway to become airbourne, and of those 100 maybe 10 where airbourne in about 6700-6800 feet, vey close to the end. Just like with US 1549 a lot of things went right with this one, as either could have been a disaster.

Not to be melodramatic but had it been a 90 degree day (not 40) with 140 plus paxs (not 83) and headed for DFW with a much higher fuel load than is normally required for ORD and most importantly had this aircraft still been on it's takeoff roll instead of already airbourne this could have been I feer very catostraphic. Had they been around the 5000 foot mark on the takeoff roll when the engine blew I don't think they could have come close to stopping and with the other conditions I just don't they could have become airbourne. Maybe with yesterdays weather and lighter GTOW perhaps but I still believe there are 88 people that are very lucky the engine blew after takeoff and not during.

Regardless Kudo's to the Flight Crew for a sucessful and safe emergencey landing at JFK, I would imagine the first 5 mins had to be pretty stressful for them especially since they where probably in IFR conditons right after takeoff.

LGA777

[Matt Molnar]

Not to be melodramatic but had it been a 90 degree day (not 40) with 140 plus paxs (not 83) and headed for DFW with a much higher fuel load than is normally required for ORD and most importantly had this aircraft still been on it's takeoff roll instead of already airbourne this could have been I feer very catostraphic.
There was one late last summer that came pretty close to landing in the East River after losing an engine during its takeoff roll.

AA MD-80 Loses Engine on Takeoff From LGA (http://www.nycaviation.com/forum/aa-md-80-loses-engine-on-takeoff-from-lga-t13025s75.html) [NYCA Thread]

[AA 777]

Not to be melodramatic but had it been a 90 degree day (not 40) with 140 plus paxs (not 83) and headed for DFW with a much higher fuel load than is normally required for ORD and most importantly had this aircraft still been on it's takeoff roll instead of already airbourne this could have been I feer very catostraphic. Had they been around the 5000 foot mark on the takeoff roll when the engine blew I don't think they could have come close to stopping and with the other conditions I just don't they could have become airbourne. Maybe with yesterdays weather and lighter GTOW perhaps but I still believe there are 88 people that are very lucky the engine blew after takeoff and not during.

While I have witnessed some insane MD80 takeoffs at LGA (both DL & AA) I have to believe that the takeoff calculations are correct and that no matter what the 7,000' will be enough for either stopping or going.

For those that don't know there is a thing called the Balanced Field Length and that is the distance on the takeoff that it takes the same amount of runway to either stop or continue the takeoff to 35'. Also taking into account that there is a V1 (go/no-go decision speed) it is probably safe to assume that everything would work out if need be. According to the FAR's if there is an engine failure before V1 you will stop the takeoff and there will be adequate distance to stop. If the engine failure occurs after V1, there should be no question - your going flying. At the V1 speed there is still sufficient distance to lose an engine at V1 and continue the takeoff.

Not exactly sure of the calculations at LGA, but I'd prolly assume that takeoffs at LGA have a low V1 since the runways are fairly short.

[LGA777]

According to the FAR's if there is an engine failure before V1 you will stop the takeoff and there will be adequate distance to stop. If the engine failure occurs after V1, there should be no question - your going flying. At the V1 speed there is still sufficient distance to lose an engine at V1 and continue the takeoff.

Not exactly sure of the calculations at LGA, but I'd prolly assume that takeoffs at LGA have a low V1 since the runways are fairly short.

Matt, while I agree with your post I have witnessed quite a few MD80 takeoff's over the years at LGA that I am not convinced would have made it into the air if they lost 50 pct of their power/thrust after V1. Thankfully it has never happened. I did witness one MD80 departure that, similar to this event lost an engine right after takeoff and the climb out was pretty scary from the ground.

While I can't remember typical v-speed for US's MD-80's at LGA they where often weight restricted espeically to Florida. I looked at couple of Shuttle A-319's for today and although they were not that heavy the differance between V1 and V2 was only around 10 knots. On a Full A-321 that was close to MTOW it had v-speeds of 141/153/155 which is still not that big a differance between V1 and liftoff.

Now as far as aborted takeoff's at LGA perhaps DHG750R would like to coment on this one has he had a front row seat for it.

0108498

0108496

0108495

0108499

Despite the damage the MD80 was not only returned to service but it ended up being one of the last CO MD80's to be retired and is active in Thailand with One-Two-Go.

And in another LGA aborted takeoff the aircraft and two of the passengers were not so lucky, this one unfortunatly I am very familiar with, there are six photos, select on upper right.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/us5050/photo.shtml

Again, I am glad things went the way they did earlier in the week.

Regards

LGA777

[moose135]

From the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-fri-brf-amr-0313mar13,0,6840018.story):


American Airlines faces maintenance questions, defends work on jet with failed engine
March 13, 2009

FT. WORTH, Texas - American Airlines said the engine failure that caused a jet to make an emergency landing in New York on Wednesday may have been caused by an object—something other than a bird—sucked into the engine.

An American spokesman on Thursday defended the maintenance of the jet.

Pieces of one of the two engines on the jet, which took off from LaGuardia Airport and landed at nearby JFK Airport, were found embedded in the fuselage, and other debris landed on a home.

American mechanics, federal inspectors and representatives of enginemaker Pratt & Whitney will inspect the engine at the airline's maintenance facility in Tulsa, Okla., American spokesman Tim Smith said.