Back to Squawk list
  • 40

Air Canada jet carrying 130 'is preparing for an emergency landing at Madrid airport

An Air Canada Boeing 767 is set to make an emergency landing at an airport in Madrid after part of its landing gear reportedly fell off and entered its engines. The plane bound for Toronto carrying 130 passengers is expected to land around 6pm local time after spending three hours circling Madrid to burn as much fuel as possible. ( Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

mbrews 10
Other info : ACA837 was departing Madrid's runway 36L when the left hand engine (CF6) suffered a number of compressor stalls emitting bangs and streaks of flame. The crew shut the engine down, levelled at 5000 feet initially, later orbiting hold at 8000 feet to burn off fuel and have the landing gear inspected by fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft confirmed one of the tires was blown. The Air Canada 767 aircraft landed safely at Madrid Barajas about 4 hours after departure.
Paul Tillotson 3
Hmmmmmmm, huge difference between part of the landing gear falling of and having a blown tire. Glad everyone is okay.
Highflyer1950 5
True, but I have heard of a tire disintegrating on the take off roll and flinging debris ahead of the engine which it then ingests damaging fan blades. Remote but plausible.
djames225 2
In a case like that, you could say part of the landing gear fell off. Sounds like you remote but plausible theory happened here.
bbabis 3
I agree with the tire shedding parts into the engine. All agree that the news rarely gets it right.
AF Concorde, maybe?
Torsten Hoff 6
That was somewhat different, nothing was ingested into the engine. The tire was cut by debris left on the runway by another aircraft, and the tire exploded and punctured the fuel tank in the left wing. Fuel gushing from under the wing was then lit by the engine exhaust (the Concorde had afterburners).
Roger Anderson 3
In before someone blames Boeing
Doug Parker 1
Circling with only one engine for three hours to burn off fuel. Why not dump it? Lose that other engine, and you've lost all chances of dumping anything.

That doesn't seem right.
djames225 2
A: Madrid has no real major "dump area" for the amt needed to get rid of and B: they had to wait for a chase aircraft to inspect the gear anyhow. And if the other engine shut down, it would become 1 big glider. Remember Gimli Manitoba or Air Transat 236.
Andrew Wright 1
Chris B 1
The Daily Mail is well known for clickbait stories. But the current version of the story that they are releasing at least has video etc.
matt jensen 0
andy coy 1
No where to dump fuel? Why the 3 hour burn vs dump?
Highflyer1950 3
Some early model -300’s were not equipped with fuel dump. Also, the fuel dump only empties the centre tank so depending on max landing weight it may not help. With only 130 pax the aircraft should have been pretty light unless there was a good deal of cargo loaded?
andy coy -1
Wow, thanks for the info. I was under the impression that they could all do it for safety, but now I least they didn't dump it on a school like DAL 89!!!
MrTommy 1
And, you can't 'accidentally' dump ALL your fuel and have an even BIGGER emergency.
Has landed safely
Scott Campbell -6
sorry but this can hardly be seen
Mark Lindgren 0
The pilots performed the correct procedure. The aircraft requires reverse thrust from both engines to safely slow down after landing.

To attemp an overweight landing with damaged tires and asymmetrical reverse thrust is never advisable especially with wing mounted engines unless there is a greater emergency such as smoke in the cabin or fire.
Highflyer1950 1
Actually, reverse thrust is not factored into landing distance or runway length requirements. Single engine reversing although not as effective is still available as an assist. The thing about overweight landing is there are no charted distances other than then usual add ons for contamination.
Mark Lindgren 1
I agree and stand corrected. Should have said overweight landing not advisable with asymmetric thrust especially with blown tires.
Gary Bain 0
The aircraft DOES NOT require reverse thrust from both engines. The crew shut down the engine so reverse thrust would not be available if it wan't running. The crew did indeed perform the correct procedure. Good job!
nofossil70 0
Landed 4 days ago. Back in service. Time to remove
ron schach -3
For those who have forgotten, and from a retired airline pilot, the dump fuel or burn fuel to make a landing does not have to be done that way. Make your over weight landing and enter it in the log book as an over weight landing. No need to waste the fuel or the money. Check with your maintenance department gentlemen in the cockpit.
bbabis 4
That is a very good point to remember Ron. In this instance though, with the landing gear already compromised in some way, it was best to avoid the overweight landing.
ron schach -5
You need to talk to your maintenance department on the capability of your aircraft with one or two unusable tires and the cost of dumping fuel on the school yard. Those kids will claim medical problems for the rest of their lives. That cost won't be over for decades. Reverse thrust doesn't change with overweight landing, read the ops and maintenance manuals.
Highflyer1950 3
I think you referring to the wrong squawk.
djames225 1
For some reason, I think he's inferring to 2 squawks, the Delta 89 and this 1
ron schach 0
I am referring to flights that spend hours flying around burning off fuel or dumping it vs. an overweight landing and the log book entry required for such a landing. Seems there have been several lately.
djames225 2
There is a difference between slight overweight landing, and severe overweight landing. Also aircraft specs, in this case MTOW 159,000 kg and MLW of 136,078 and that is with good landing gear and engines.
While I severely disagree of how and where Delta 89 dumped, again plane specs of MTOW 297,550kg and MLW 213,000kg and that again is with good engines, which this particular craft did not have.
Highflyer1950 0
A slightly overweight landing may only require an inspection after it’s been entered in the log book. However, depending on the exact aircraft landing weight, it may involve a more in depth inspection, dye penetration, non-destructive testing or even landing gear removal and overhaul.......very, very expensive and time consuming with the “assumption“ you are already at a maintenance base! Fuel is the least expensive option.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.