AA1400 - STL engine fire - what went wrong

[aa73]

Aircraft # N454AA had a deferred L Start Valve, wired shut due to a previous writeup in which the L START VALVE ON light did not illuminate during engine start. When the valve is wired shut, it must be manually opened by MTX for engine starts.

Supposedly, on the day of the emergency, the L START VALVE ON light illuminated while climbing out of 2500msl, and the starter exploded out through the top of the engine, taking out the L generator and somehow screwing up the L hydraulic system, and causing the engine fire. The crew performed a quick downwind but could not extend the gear due to the hydraulic issues. They performed a manual gear extension and landed. After ARFF doused the fire the pax were deplaned through airstairs.

The theory going around is that the start valve "unsecured" itself, allowing ram air to blow into the starter and spin it up to super high RPMs, causing its failure.

To the crew of AA1400, a fantastic, professional job well done!

I'm just wondering... do the pax on that flight (all 140 of them) think we are overpaid?

73

 

[eaglefly]

Aircraft # N454AA had a deferred L Start Valve, wired shut due to a previous writeup in which the L START VALVE ON light did not illuminate during engine start. When the valve is wired shut, it must be manually opened by MTX for engine starts.

Supposedly, on the day of the emergency, the L START VALVE ON light illuminated while climbing out of 2500msl, and the starter exploded out through the top of the engine, taking out the L generator and somehow screwing up the L hydraulic system, and causing the engine fire. The crew performed a quick downwind but could not extend the gear due to the hydraulic issues. They performed a manual gear extension and landed. After ARFF doused the fire the pax were deplaned through airstairs.

The theory going around is that the start valve "unsecured" itself, allowing ram air to blow into the starter and spin it up to super high RPMs, causing its failure.

To the crew of AA1400, a fantastic, professional job well done!

I'm just wondering... do the pax on that flight (all 140 of them) think we are overpaid?

73

Sadly, yes.

Most were probably looking at their watches and grumbling to the agents about the delay.

 

[aa73]

Sadly, yes.

Most were probably looking at their watches and grumbling to the agents about the delay.

True statement. I wouldn't be surprised.

I just learned that they had to perform a single engine go around when the nose gear wouldn't extend. At that point they manually extended the gear and came back around. Man, what a day! Maybe they should have their recurrent waived this year.

73

 

[ultrarunner]

True statement. I wouldn't be surprised.

I just learned that they had to perform a single engine go around when the nose gear wouldn't extend. At that point they manually extended the gear and came back around. Man, what a day! Maybe they should have their recurrent waived this year.

73

Uhhhgg...and SE GA in an MD-80....not the most over powered beast in the fleet, that's for sure! And full in the back....

 

[PropPiedmont]

An American MD-80 did a SE G/A in Roanoke about two years ago. They had a fuel leak in one of the engines and had to shut it down. They were enroute and diverted into Roanoke, but were too high on the first approach and had to go around.