Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

United Express returns to DEN and evacs on rwy...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
An Expressjet Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of United, registration N15973 performing flight EV-5912/UA-5912 from Peoria,IL to Denver,CO (USA) with 22 people on board, was cleared to land on runway 34R. Tower controller was issuing instructions to other aircraft when he interrupted in surprise and exclaimed “he hit the lights” followed by “runway 34R is closed” instructing the next arriving aircraft to cancel approach clearance, maintain 9000 feet and continue on the localizer, all airport frequencies began to report an ongoing emergency on the airport, traffic on runway 34L and departures on runway 25 were also temporarily halted. The Embraer rolled out and stopped on the runway remaining there disabled, tower advised emergency services were deploying. The crew of another aircraft advised they were observing the landing and they had the impression the Embraer had hit the approach lights then touched down really hard but when they taxied closer to have a look onto the aircraft it didn’t appear they would have struck the lights but they aren’t sure, tower commented in response they’ll have the approach and runway lights inspected. The Embraer was evacuated due to smoke on board.

The airport reported the crew reported smoke in the cockpit, the aircraft was evacuated. One passenger was taken to a hospital, the extent of injuries was not known. The aircraft remained disabled on the runway, the runway was closed for 2.5 hours.

The airline reported the aircraft was evacuated onto the runway because of smoke on the aircraft.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?cev2dl
 
the two stories kind of conflict. Was the smoke in the cockpit in-flight or did smoke in the cabin occur due to the hard landing, hitting lights etc?
 
rausda27 said:
the two stories kind of conflict. Was the smoke in the cockpit in-flight or did smoke in the cabin occur due to the hard landing, hitting lights etc?
Click to expand...


well it is just a regional.....if you make it the airport you're doing pretty good for the day.
 
I think there has been a lot of confusion about the "smoke in the cockpit". I believe it was post-crash according to some other reports to the contrary.
 
The smoke occurred on final. Cockpit quickly filled with smoke and crew couldnt see, hence the bad landing.
 
be-400xpdriver said:
Controller F'ed it up.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/261127/339/Air-controller-during-emergency-landing-I-know-thats-BS
Click to expand...


I think the pilot f-ed it up by not using his complete call sign. Using a partial call sign on a routine basis is a bad habit because in situations like this, saying jetlink or acey prior to the flight number will not come naturally. I hear it all the time even when two different airlines are on the same frequencies with similar call signs during read-backs.

With the background noise in the tower cab and old equipment it is very possible that the tape caught the 59 in 5912 but only the 12 was heard by the controller. Using the proper callsign of Jetlink or Acey 5912, would probably have solved the issue and quelled the controllers suspicions that it was a "prank" call.
 
Last edited:
Varmint said:
I think the pilot f-ed it up by not using his complete call sign. Using a partial call sign on a routine basis is a bad habit because in situations like this, saying jetlink or acey prior to the flight number will not come naturally. I hear it all the time even when two different airlines are on the same frequencies with similar call signs during read-backs.

With the background noise in the tower cab and old equipment it is very possible that the tape caught the 59 in 5912 but only the 12 was heard by the controller. Using the proper callsign of Jetlink or Acey 5912, would probably have solved the issue and quelled the controllers suspicions that it was a "prank" call.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right. I can see how "5912" could be heard as "United 12.

If those guys did smack the runway lights because the couldn't see it's time ALPA and the rest of the alphabet organizations start getting behind mandatory EVAS.
 
They didnt hit the lights. The NTSB isnt even getting involved they said cos smoke was from an engine seal leak not fire. Captain said they lost the runway as they past over the threshold cos of the smoke and landed hard. No damage to the aircraft. That other aircraft was erroneous in his radio transmission of the lights being hit.
 
We all know they don't like the Acey call sign, but it should come naturally. But what do I know. The BA038 777 captain did something similar-- used a call sign for his next flight. The controller in that case, saw what was happening and reacted well.
 
russtgol said:
Really? Please...
Click to expand...

This crew did a fantastic job. I think until you are in a cockpit unable to see the instruments or the hand in front of your face, it's hard to say how you would react. I don't know if I would say the call sign if I was that amped up.
 
ASA_Aviator said:
This crew did a fantastic job. I think until you are in a cockpit unable to see the instruments or the hand in front of your face, it's hard to say how you would react. I don't know if I would say the call sign if I was that amped up.
Click to expand...

Don't be so dramatic....
 
Oakum_Boy said:
We all know they don't like the Acey call sign, but it should come naturally. But what do I know. The BA038 777 captain did something similar-- used a call sign for his next flight. The controller in that case, saw what was happening and reacted well.
Click to expand...

Agree. The controller was sharp in the BA situation. However, the Capt of BA38, when he made the call, stated "speedbird xxx" which immediately clued the controller in that there was an issue. The controller knew he had a BA on short final and could correlate that that was the emergency aircraft. Why do guys in the US not use the full call sign? Do guys think that it sounds cool to just say the numbers or is it just pure laziness?

In this situation, the FO blirts out 5912 which sounded like United 12. Had he said ACEY 5912, I think the outcome with the response to the incident would have been much better.

I am glad everyone got out of this safely and it sounds like the crew did a great job.....I just don't think that the controller should be raked over the coals because of someone's slack radio technique.
 
Last edited:
Varmint said:
Agree. The controller was sharp in the BA situation. However, the Capt of BA38, when he made the call, stated "speedbird xxx" which immediately clued the controller in that there was an issue. The controller knew he had a BA on short final and could correlate that that was the emergency aircraft. Why do guys in the US not use the full call sign? Do guys think that it sounds cool to just say the numbers or is it just pure laziness?

In this situation, the FO blirts out 5912 which sounded like United 12. Had he said ACEY 5912, I think the outcome with the response to the incident would have been much better.

I am glad everyone got out of this safely and it sounds like the crew did a great job.....I just don't think that the controller should be raked over the coals because of someone's slack radio technique.
Click to expand...

I don't think the controller should be raked over the coals, but neither should the crew. They had their hands full.
 
Varmint said:
I think the pilot f-ed it up by not using his complete call sign. Using a partial call sign on a routine basis is a bad habit because in situations like this, saying jetlink or acey prior to the flight number will not come naturally.....
Click to expand...


You guys are full of it. Who said he "routinely" failed to say "Acey"?

They were in an emergency situation with smoke filling the cockpit ... saying the flight number to abbreviate the radio call should have been more than enough to roll the trucks, even though not 100% the best procedure. The controller CLEARLY dropped the ball, he heard an emergency call and failed to react. If he wasn't sure he should have rolled the trucks anyway, just in case.

I flew with a guy that had this exact same scenario, (blew an engine seal and all the engine oil feeds into the packs, A/I etc.) and his view of the instruments was obstructed WITHIN SECONDS.

On top of that they were flying an approach, trying to get the mask and goggles on, wondering what was going on really and probably with the FA dinging and yelling through the door, all in a snowstorm close to minimums.

I can only assume you are not a pilot.
 
Last edited:
ASA_Aviator said:
I don't think the controller should be raked over the coals, but neither should the crew. They had their hands full.
Click to expand...

100%. The news is reporting the FAA is investigating the controller. The news' "consultant", ex-NTSB investigator Greg Feith, was on chastising the handling by the controller.

I think the outcome was good and I am not placing blame or throwing darts. Nobody should be investigated in this incident. Just making an observation on something that I am going to try to improve on with my communication so I get the services I need when I need them.
 
Varmint said:
100%. The news is reporting the FAA is investigating the controller. The news' "consultant", ex-NTSB investigator Greg Feith, was on chastising the handling by the controller.

I think the outcome was good and I am not placing blame or throwing darts. Nobody should be investigated in this incident. Just making an observation on something that I am going to try to improve on with my communication so I get the services I need when I need them.
Click to expand...


So if you get an engine fire warning in the cockpit and disregard it "because it's probably a faulty detector", you think you shouldn't be held responsible for failing to run the engine fire checklist?

Same with this controller, of course he should be held responsible. He heard an emergency declared with a request to roll the trucks, yet he did nothing. What difference does it make if he heard the callsign or not.

I'm not saying he should be fired but a little retraining wouldn't hurt.
 
princeton said:
You guys are full of it. Who said he "routinely" failed to say "Acey"?

They were in an emergency situation with smoke filling the cockpit ... saying the flight number to abbreviate the radio call should have been more than enough to roll the trucks, even though not 100% the best procedure. The controller CLEARLY dropped the ball, he heard an emergency call and failed to react. If he wasn't sure he should have rolled the trucks anyway, just in case.

I flew with a guy that had this exact same scenario, (blew an engine seal and all the engine oil feeds into the packs, A/I etc.) and his view of the instruments was obstructed WITHIN SECONDS.

On top of that they were flying an approach, trying to get the mask and goggles on, wondering what was going on really and probably with the FA dinging and yelling through the door, all in a snowstorm close to minimums.

I can only assume you are not a pilot.
Click to expand...

I can assume you have no other skills but flying an airplane....but that doesn't mean I am correct.

If the controller heard "United 12", which was not an aircraft under his control he should have rolled the trucks? That is like saying if an aircraft declares an emergency on 121.5, every airport that hears the emergency should scramble their trucks before knowing the aircraft's position.....presumably a 300nm wide circle around the aircraft's position. Additionally, how is the controller supposed to specify a response location to emergency services for a flight he doesn't know the location of.

Aviate, navigate, communicate. Sure, the guys had their hands full, no doubt about that, they are trained professionals so they managed the situation with a successful outcome.

Do you have a constructive comment on something that could have been done differently so the confusion could have been eliminated other than the one that I have presented involving using the full call sign rather than the abbreviated numbers? Or, is your solution to spend everyone's tax dollars having emergency services drive around the airport looking for phantom emergency aircraft with no known position.
 
princeton said:
So if you get an engine fire warning in the cockpit and disregard it "because it's probably a faulty detector", you think you shouldn't be held responsible for failing to run the engine fire checklist?

Same with this controller, of course he should be held responsible. He heard an emergency declared with a request to roll the trucks, yet he did nothing. What difference does it make if he heard the callsign or not.

I'm not saying he should be fired but a little retraining wouldn't hurt.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

My engine fire warning is connected to something that I know the location of.

Where is the controller supposed to roll the trucks to? He doesn't know the flight number he heard because the pilot did not follow the AIM and use his full call sign so he has no idea of the emergency aircraft's location. If the controller responds the trucks from the centrally located fire station to a random location, it could take LONGER for trucks to reach where they actually need to be.
 
Last edited:
Varmint said:
Apples and oranges.

My engine fire warning is connected to something that I know the location of.

Where is the controller supposed to roll the trucks to? He doesn't know the flight number he heard because the pilot did not follow the AIM and use his full call sign so he has no idea of the emergency aircraft's location. If the controller responds the trucks from the centrally located fire station to a random location, it could take LONGER for trucks to reach where they actually need to be.
Click to expand...
We have a winner.

121 aircraft need EVAS installed before someone gets killed over a crew not being able to read the panel. Also, using your full callsign in each transmission needs to be second nature. If it is, you'll use it during a hellaciously stressful time like evacuating on an active runway with an airplane full of smoke.

These guys still did a fine job. Many less serious situations have caused crews to wad up an airplane.
 
Varmint said:
Where is the controller supposed to roll the trucks to? He doesn't know the flight number he heard because the pilot did not follow the AIM and use his full call sign so he has no idea of the emergency aircraft's location. If the controller responds the trucks from the centrally located fire station to a random location, it could take LONGER for trucks to reach where they actually need to be.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a little bit more proactive reaction could have possibly been something like.......

"aircraft with the emergency and evac, say call sign and location"

As opposed to going by what he thinks he heard, saying what he thinks he heard over the radio, naturally not getting a response and basically doing little about it.
 
The transcript is WRONG!! He clearly said "acey 5912 we're evacuating on the runway" but the transcript reads "this is 5912 we're evacuating on the runway"

maybe we should go back to Chandler
 
Pretty simple really, If the controller heard someone say "United 12 is emergency roll trucks" but he doesn't have a United 12 (but does have 5912) then would you not assume you heard wrong and query? not just immediately conclude it was a hoax. How often have you heard a hoax anyway? In 15 years I have not heard one.
I don't want to see the controller raked over the coals either, they do a great job out there but some training in emergency situations and introduction to smoke in the cockpit would be in order.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom